This case involved a breach of contract claim by Efficient Solutions against Meiners' Country Mart for unpaid services under a master service agreement, along with the defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. The defendant demanded a jury trial, but the plaintiff moved to strike the demand based on an express jury waiver clause in the contract. The court granted the motion to strike, ruling that the waiver was knowing and voluntary since the defendant offered no evidence it was unaware of the provision when signing, that the contract language was not ambiguous, and that the waiver extended to the counterclaims because they arose directly from the formation and performance of the contract containing the clause.
Angela Covey sued her former employer, Methodist Hospital, claiming violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act after she was not reinstated to her Purchasing Agent position following medical leave for multiple sclerosis and declined an offered alternative role. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the FMLA claims. The court reasoned that the FMLA permitted the employer to transfer an employee needing intermittent leave to a position that better accommodated her schedule, that the offered Payroll Clerk position was a valid accommodation, and that there is no private right of action for an employer's failure to follow its own leave policies.
In this case, plaintiff contractors challenged the Memphis City Schools Board's use of minority and women business enterprise programs that set racial goals for subcontracting on public construction projects, arguing the underlying disparity study was flawed and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court addressed whether the Board could rely on new evidence gathered after enacting the programs to show the required "strong basis in evidence" of past discrimination. The court held that post-enactment evidence is inadmissible for this purpose. It reasoned that Supreme Court precedent in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. requires the governmental entity to have developed a sufficient factual predicate of discrimination before implementing a race-based program, as racial classifications demand strict scrutiny and cannot be justified retroactively at trial.
The case Ashton v. City of Memphis concerns white police officers' challenges to the Memphis Police Department's use of affirmative action in 1988 and 1989 sergeant promotions, which bypassed higher-ranked white candidates to meet racial proportionality goals under prior consent decrees. Following remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court assessed whether these measures were narrowly tailored to address the government's compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against black officers. The opinion details the history of 1974, 1979, and 1981 consent decrees that established long-term goals for black representation in promotions approximating the local civilian labor force, while examining applicant data, the effects of seniority scoring, and limitations in evidence on the relevant qualified labor pool. The court found the promotions aligned with the decrees' requirements but noted insufficient proof on the decrees' ongoing necessity and constitutionality.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in Mary Brigance’s Chapter 13 proceeding, where EZ Cash 1, LLC objected to the treatment of its claim arising from a short-term loan structured as an exchange of checks for $200 in immediate funds in return for Brigance’s $248 post-dated check. The bankruptcy court ruled that EZ Cash held only a general unsecured claim because Brigance’s check did not create a security interest under Tennessee law and that separate classification of the claim was improper. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that a negotiable instrument cannot serve as collateral for the underlying obligation it is meant to satisfy and that EZ Cash failed to demonstrate grounds under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1) for preferential treatment over other unsecured creditors. The court reviewed the bankruptcy findings for clear error on facts and de novo on legal conclusions, finding no basis to disturb the determinations.
The case involved the death of Jeffrey Alexander, who was allegedly thrown to the floor and held down by BB King's nightclub employees, leading to traumatic asphyxia, after which responding Memphis police officers handcuffed him, placed him in a contorted position, and delayed medical treatment. Plaintiffs, his parents, brought state-law tort claims and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the club defendants and the Memphis defendants. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment, applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard that accepts all factual allegations as true unless no set of facts could entitle plaintiffs to relief. It denied the officers' motions in part on qualified immunity and other grounds without prejudice to later summary judgment after discovery, while resolving certain legal issues such as the viability of survival and wrongful-death claims under Tennessee law and § 1983.
