Jeanne E. Scott

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved the government's effort to compel Microsoft to produce the contents of previously opened emails from a defendant's Hotmail account pursuant to a trial subpoena in a child pornography prosecution. The court granted the motion to compel, holding that Microsoft must comply because the emails were not "in electronic storage" under the Stored Communications Act. The core reasoning examined the Act's provisions distinguishing communications in temporary electronic storage (requiring a warrant if 180 days or less old) from those held solely for storage or processing services by a remote computing service (obtainable via subpoena), concluding that opened emails accessible to the user fell into the latter category and could be obtained without a warrant.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves GSI Group suing Sukup Manufacturing for alleged infringement of multiple patents related to grain bin doors, heaters, and tower dryer sweep unloaders, claiming willful infringement and seeking enhanced damages, while Sukup brought counterclaims for tortious interference with business relationships and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, also seeking punitive damages. The opinion addresses dozens of pretrial motions in limine filed by both parties to limit evidence and arguments at the January 2009 trial. The court allowed some motions in whole or part to bar irrelevant matters such as stockholder wealth, already-resolved inequitable conduct defenses, or certain hearsay and expert opinions during the liability phase, while denying others to permit evidence on bias, intent, willfulness, damages calculations, or counterclaim elements, all based on standards of relevance and prior summary judgment rulings.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a motion by plaintiff Jon Petersen to exclude the expert testimony of defense physiatrist Dr. J. William Wellborn in a personal injury action stemming from a 2004 train-car collision at a railroad crossing in Illinois that injured then-15-year-old Katie Petersen. The plaintiffs planned to present their own expert on Katie's future impairments and medical needs, and Union Pacific sought to introduce Dr. Wellborn to critique those opinions. The court denied the motion to bar, holding that challenges to the expert's review of incomplete records, time spent on the file, and alleged disregard of certain medical literature and test results concerned the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. The court found Dr. Wellborn's opinions sufficiently grounded in reliable methodology and facts, and determined that his testimony would assist the jury in assessing damages if liability were established.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns allegations by GSI Group that Sukup Manufacturing willfully infringed several of GSI's patents covering designs for grain bin doors, heaters, and tower dryer components. Prior rulings had established that certain patents were valid and had been infringed by Sukup before the lawsuit, though some patents were invalidated and current products did not infringe. Sukup sought summary judgment on the issue of willfulness, arguing that evidence of design changes and lack of pre-suit notice precluded a finding of willful infringement. The court denied the motion, holding that factual disputes existed regarding Sukup's intent based on evidence of copying and marketing materials, which must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves claims by plaintiffs for personal injuries and deaths resulting from a collision between a minivan and a Union Pacific freight train at a grade crossing in Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by the railroad, including that the crossing warning lights and bells failed to activate and that the system was malfunctioning under federal regulations, requiring additional warnings. The court denied summary judgment on those specific claims because disputed issues of fact existed regarding activation of the warning system and any malfunctions. Partial summary judgment was granted to the railroad on the plaintiffs' other negligence theories, such as excessive train speed and overgrown vegetation, as no supporting evidence was presented.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a pharmacist employed by Wal-Mart in Illinois who was placed on unpaid leave after refusing, on religious grounds, to dispense emergency contraceptives as required by a state regulation mandating that Division I pharmacies fill such prescriptions without delay. The plaintiff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging religious discrimination, and under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, claiming protection for refusing to provide health care services due to conscience. Wal-Mart moved to dismiss, arguing compliance with the regulation and that the state statute did not cover pharmacists. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated a Title VII claim based on adverse employment action tied to religious beliefs and that the plain language of the Right of Conscience Act applied to any person, including pharmacists, refusing to furnish medication. The court also rejected a request to stay proceedings pending resolution of a related case.

religious libertycivil rightslabor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved plaintiffs Melvin and Patricia Genenbacher suing LightCore for trespass, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, alleging that a fiber optic cable network was installed on their property without permission by Digital Teleport, Inc. (DTI), whose assets LightCore acquired through a bankruptcy sale free and clear of claims under 11 U.S.C. § 363. The court allowed the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing claims based on the original installation and ongoing operation of the network because those claims accrued against DTI before the sale. However, claims based on subsequent unauthorized entries by LightCore personnel onto the property were not dismissed, as they could constitute separate trespasses. The reasoning relied on Illinois law treating the injury from a permanent underground structure as a one-time permanent injury accruing at installation, rather than a continuing tort.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a class action complaint filed in Illinois state court by plaintiffs Melvin and Patricia Genenbacher against defendant CenturyTel Fiber Co. (LightCore) asserting state-law claims for trespass, declaratory judgment, and unjust enrichment arising from alleged property issues. The defendant removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) based on minimal diversity, over 100 class members, and more than $5 million in aggregated claims. After the court denied class certification, it examined its continuing subject matter jurisdiction and decided that jurisdiction was retained. The core reasoning was that CAFA diversity jurisdiction is assessed at the time of filing or removal under longstanding principles from cases like St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., subsequent denial of certification or reduction in claims does not divest jurisdiction, and the class claims remained unresolved as an interlocutory matter that could potentially be revisited.

procedure

The case concerned several major railroad companies operating in Illinois that sued the commissioners of the Illinois Commerce Commission, seeking to block enforcement of the Illinois Railroad Employees Medical Treatment Act (IR-EMTA) on grounds that it was preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' cross-motion, issuing declaratory and injunctive relief against the state law. The core reasoning was that the FRSA mandates nationally uniform regulation of railroad safety to the extent practicable, the IR-EMTA directly addresses railroad employee medical treatment and related reporting requirements, and the state statute did not fall within either statutory exception allowing additional state rules. The opinion reviewed the FRSA's preemption provision, its legislative history emphasizing avoidance of conflicting state requirements, and the absence of any FRA approval for the Illinois measure.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved an appeal by the Illinois Department of Revenue from a bankruptcy court's ruling in the Chapter 13 proceeding of Keith and Lisa Ayre, who had operated a restaurant. The Department filed proofs of claim for over $104,000 in unpaid sales and withholding taxes, but the debtors' confirmed reorganization plan proposed paying only $10,500 to settle the disputed claims, and the trustee objected to the larger proofs of claim. The bankruptcy court sustained the objection, and the district court affirmed, holding that the confirmed plan bound the Department. The core reasoning was that the Department received notice of the plan and confirmation hearing but failed to object, and the confirmation process provided sufficient due process to resolve the disputed claims as a contested matter under bankruptcy rules, unlike procedures required for certain other discharges such as student loans.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved licensed Illinois pharmacists challenging a state rule requiring Division I pharmacies to dispense FDA-approved contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives like Plan B, without delay upon receipt of a valid prescription. Some plaintiffs alleged they lost jobs at Walgreens for refusing to comply on religious grounds, while Walgreens faced state enforcement actions and employee suits; both sets of plaintiffs claimed violations of the First Amendment's free exercise clause and Title VII. The court denied the motion to dismiss the pharmacists' amended complaint in full and partially denied the motion as to Walgreens' third-party complaint, allowing claims that the rule violated federal law to proceed while dismissing requests for declaratory judgments on whether Walgreens' policies complied with Title VII or the rule. The core reasoning was that well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss, federal courts have jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from violating federal law like Title VII, and the rule's application could burden religious exercise or create conflicts with federal employment protections.

religious libertycivil rightshealthcare

This case involves a § 1983 suit by plaintiff Scott Glisson against Sangamon County jail officials and a village police officer, alleging constitutional violations during his detention following a probation revocation warrant and new criminal charges. Glisson claimed he was strapped to a wheelchair for hours without bathroom access, subjected to interference with attorney visits, and that Officer Weiss illegally searched and injured him during an arrest while he was in a manic state due to bipolar disorder. The court ruled on two motions to dismiss: it granted the County Defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part, while denying Officer Weiss’s motion in full. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), the inapplicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to most claims, and the viability of the alleged deprivations of rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois state court in 2000 by plaintiffs against DaimlerChrysler alleging deceptive practices under state consumer fraud laws for concealing paint defects known as topcoat delamination on 1990-1997 model vehicles. The original nationwide class action complaint was later amended to add plaintiffs and narrow the class to ten states. Chrysler removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which applies only to class actions commenced after February 18, 2005, arguing that the amendments created a new action. The court allowed the motion to remand, holding that the class action claim commenced with the 2000 filing because the Second Amended Complaint merely added plaintiffs to represent the same putative class without starting a new proceeding, so CAFA did not confer removal jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's attempt to block the Secretary of Defense's recommendation, approved by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, to transfer F-16 aircraft and personnel from the state's Air National Guard unit to a base in Indiana, claiming the move required his consent under federal statutes governing National Guard units. The Governor sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the Commission from forwarding its report to the President. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Governor lacked standing because the recommendations at issue were merely tentative and did not constitute an injury-in-fact. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Dalton v. Specter, the opinion explained that only later actions by the President and Congress in the base closure process could effectuate any realignment, rendering the claims premature and non-justiciable.

federal powerprocedure