Plaintiff Chyrianne H. Jones, an African-American female sales representative, sued her employer St. Jude Medical and supervisor Michael Moore, alleging race and sex discrimination, hostile work environment, wage discrimination, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02 after her termination in 2009. The claims centered on disputes over sales territories, compensation guarantees, performance evaluations, and adverse actions following protected complaints. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It determined that Jones failed to present sufficient evidence establishing a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation or to rebut the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions.
The case concerned consolidated challenges by LetOhioVote.org, a ballot-issue committee formed to seek a referendum repealing video lottery terminal provisions in Ohio law, along with its members and related parties, against subpoenas issued by the Ohio Secretary of State as part of a campaign-finance investigation into the committee's funding sources. The subpoenas targeted out-of-state individuals and threatened criminal penalties for noncompliance, following an earlier Ohio Supreme Court ruling that the referendum provisions were valid but denying writs of prohibition against the subpoenas. The federal district court denied the Secretary's motions to dissolve existing state court injunctions in two cases but granted the motion to dismiss the claims against the Secretary in the third case without prejudice.
This case involves consolidated antitrust and related claims brought by plaintiff Craig Williamson, owner of Circle W Mastiffs, against other American Mastiff breeders and the American Mastiff Breeders Council. Williamson alleged that the defendants engaged in price-fixing agreements, group boycotts, and efforts to exclude new entrants and limit breeding stock in the market for American Mastiff puppies and breeding dogs. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the majority of the antitrust counts (including Sherman Act claims) along with several others for failure to adequately plead a relevant market, antitrust injury, or other required elements, while allowing three counts to proceed. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint.
This case concerns whether Great Seneca Financial Corp. could remain a defendant in lawsuits filed by Deborah Rice and Delores Hartman after the company's voluntary dissolution under Maryland law. Following remand from the Sixth Circuit and denial of certiorari, the court granted Great Seneca's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to be dropped as a party. The ruling rested on the common-law rule, confirmed by Maryland statutes, that a corporation's capacity to sue or be sued terminates upon dissolution once its assets are distributed and its directors' winding-up authority ends, with no exceptions for these civil claims. Plaintiffs did not timely substitute the directors as defendants, so the actions continue only against the remaining defendant, the Javitch firm.
The case involves a dispute between coal estate owners and operators American Energy Corporation and Consolidated Land Company, who hold rights to mine coal via longwall methods in Monroe County, Ohio, and pipeline operator Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, whose interstate natural gas pipelines cross the area. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that their superior property rights under pre-1913 severance deeds allow them to mine all coal and subside the surface without liability, requiring the defendant to develop and fund mitigation plans to protect the pipelines. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption under the Natural Gas Act and Pipeline Safety Act, among other grounds. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the claims arise under state property law and are not preempted by federal pipeline regulations, as those laws do not conflict with or displace the relevant Ohio mining and property rights.
Dr. Rudolph Alexander, an African-American tenured professor at Ohio State University's College of Social Work, sued the university, its College of Social Work, and two administrators under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming race discrimination and retaliation tied to his 2006 removal from a program director role, salary decisions, annual raises, and other employment actions after he questioned pay disparities and a proposed student ethics pledge. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Alexander presented no direct evidence of discrimination, failed to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework for either discrimination or retaliation, and could not show that the university's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual; the court further held that some of his information requests were not protected activity and that certain actions were not materially adverse.
