The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Crye-Leike, Inc. and its subsidiary under Title VII for alleged race discrimination in failing to hire black applicants, retaliation against several intervening plaintiffs who opposed or participated in related claims, and failure to preserve application records. The defendants and intervening plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the ground that the EEOC had not conciliated in good faith. The court denied the motion, holding that the EEOC's efforts satisfied the statutory prerequisite even though the parties disagreed about the scope of the class claims and the details of the negotiations.
The case involved multiple plaintiffs, most of whom are African American, suing the Little Rock School District and related defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged race discrimination in a 2005 reorganization audit and in subsequent denials of job positions, claiming violations of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending there was no evidence of intentional discrimination, that the reorganization was not racially motivated, and that some claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on intentional discrimination or unlawful denial of positions and that certain claims fell outside the three-year statute of limitations.
The case involves a dispute over long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy issued to plaintiff Gail Hall's employer, St. Bernard’s Medical Center, where Hall sued in state court for breach of contract and claimed the plan was a church plan exempt from ERISA. USAble Life removed the case to federal court asserting ERISA preemption, but the court reconsidered subject matter jurisdiction and examined whether the employer was sufficiently associated with the Catholic Church through the Olivetan Benedictine Sisters to qualify for the exemption. The court determined that the removing party bore the burden of proving the plan was not exempt and failed to meet it, even if the burden had been on Hall. As a result, the court found no federal jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court.
This case involves a dispute between LasikPlus Murphy, M.D., P.A., and Dr. David Murphy, an Arkansas ophthalmologist, and LCA-Vision, Inc., over the management and abrupt closure of a laser vision correction center in Little Rock. Plaintiffs alleged breach of the Master Practice Management Agreement and Professional Services Agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and related tortious conduct stemming from LCA's decision to close the center, patient notifications, and continuity of care issues. The court granted in part and denied in part LCA's partial motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and granted its separate motion to dismiss Count Ten, applying Arkansas contract, tort, and statutory law to evaluate the sufficiency of each claim. Core reasoning focused on whether specific allegations stated plausible claims under governing state law standards for contracts, agency, fraud, and consumer protection statutes, while dismissing counts lacking required elements or private rights of action.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare
In this case, B & B Hardware sued Hargis Industries for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under federal and state law, while Hargis counterclaimed for fraudulent trademark registration, copyright infringement, false advertising, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. After a jury trial, verdicts were returned against B & B on all its claims and in favor of Hargis on its counterclaims, leading B & B to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The court denied the motion, finding that the evidence supported the jury's conclusions on Hargis's false advertising and false designation of origin claims based on B & B's use of photographs of Hargis's products on its website, and that B & B had not shown the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence on elements like likelihood of confusion or harm.
In this case, police officer Thomas Musticchi brought a collective FLSA action against the City of Little Rock on behalf of LRPD officers, alleging failure to pay overtime for time spent donning and doffing uniforms and equipment at home, maintaining gear such as polishing shoes and cleaning vests, and related activities. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on most claims, finding that donning and doffing were non-compensable preliminary and postliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act, that uniform changes were excluded under 29 U.S.C. § 203(o), and that certain maintenance tasks were de minimis; it denied the plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion and motion for voluntary dismissal. The court withheld ruling on travel time and meal break claims pending further briefing and noted that the statute of limitations might bar some individual recoveries. The core reasoning rested on FLSA precedents defining compensable work and the statutory exclusions for preparatory activities.