Susan Webber Wright

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

procedurelabor & employmentreligious liberty

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employment

This case arose from a business dispute between James Hardy Jr. and associates and George Bartmess over their jointly owned sand mining LLC, B&H Resources, formed to operate on Bartmess's Arkansas land, with Hardy alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract related to self-dealing, a failed buy-sell agreement, and land access, while Bartmess counterclaimed for breach of contract, slander of title, and abuse of process. The court ruled on several pending motions, including denying Bartmess's motion to cancel a lis pendens notice filed in Arkansas regarding a prior Louisiana lawsuit, granting in part Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the counterclaim by dismissing the slander of title and abuse of process claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim while allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed, granting in part a motion to strike exhibits, and denying motions to strike an amended answer, for a more definite statement, and to amend a protective order. The core reasoning focused on the sufficiency of pleadings under applicable standards, the lack of authority to cancel the out-of-state lis pendens in this action, and procedural compliance with court rules.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Kimball Hardeman, a DEA special agent, sued the United States and related federal defendants under Title VII alleging race discrimination in the denial of his promotion from GS-12 to GS-13, a hostile work environment involving racial slurs, and other actions such as denial of sick leave, placement on a performance improvement plan, referral to the Office of Professional Responsibility, and restrictions on overtime and desk duty. The district court considered the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), assuming the complaint's facts as true and applying standards from Twombly and related cases. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the promotion claim as time-barred, the class action allegations, and claims regarding sick leave, PIP disclosure, OPR referral, overtime permission, and desk duty for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or because they did not constitute adverse employment actions, while denying the motion as to the hostile work environment claim. The core reasoning centered on Title VII's exhaustion requirements under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105, the need for plausible allegations of adverse actions, and precedent holding that minor or non-material changes in working conditions do not qualify as adverse employment actions.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

In this § 1983 case, pro se plaintiff Jonathon B. Johnson, a former detainee at the Crittenden County Detention Center, alleged that officials violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from an inmate attack, subjecting him to inhumane conditions, seizing his Bible, denying phone/visitation/mail privileges, and providing inadequate medical care for asthma. After reviewing the magistrate judge's proposed findings and the parties' filings, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The court allowed the failure-to-protect and free-exercise-of-religion claims to proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities only, while dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice; it also certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. The core reasoning was that defendants failed to prove non-exhaustion of remedies, that genuine factual disputes existed on the two surviving claims, and that the other claims were either previously dismissed, unserved, or barred for lack of physical injury under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious liberty

The case involved homeowners Chad and Laura Cooley who sued their insurer State Farm after it declined coverage and withdrew defense in a lawsuit brought by home buyers alleging breach of contract and fraud over undisclosed defects in the heating system and drainage that caused property damage. The Cooleys moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of State Farm's duty to defend under their personal liability umbrella policy. The court denied the motion, holding that the policy provided coverage only for property damage caused by a covered loss or occurrence. It reasoned that the buyers' claims sought economic losses stemming from the Cooleys' alleged misrepresentations and nondisclosures rather than damages caused by the property defects themselves, so the claims fell outside the policy's scope and created no duty to defend.

propertytorts & liability

This case is a bankruptcy appeal by debtor Eddie V. Hamilton challenging the bankruptcy court's denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) and its rulings that certain debts to his former wife Nancy Hamilton were nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(6) and 523(a)(15), with those debts reduced to a $43,840 judgment. The underlying facts involved a divorce decree requiring Hamilton to care for and transfer horses and other property to his ex-wife, which he failed to do, resulting in the horses' death or severe injury and nondelivery of personal items. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision after de novo review of legal standards and clear-error review of factual findings, holding that the proper measure of damages for the willful and malicious injury was the pre-injury fair market value of the horses and tack, that the $3,000 valuation of the undelivered items was supported by evidence, and that no remand was needed on mitigation because the record showed no genuine factual dispute.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned Continental Casualty Company's request for a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify attorney Woodson Walker and his firm under a lawyers' professional liability policy in connection with a legal malpractice suit filed by Jo Ann Williams. The court granted Continental's motion for summary judgment. The policy was a claims-made-and-reported policy covering only claims first made against the insured and reported in writing to the insurer during the policy period or the automatic 60-day extended reporting period after non-renewal; the underlying malpractice claim, filed in October 2005, fell outside the final policy period ending April 27, 2005, and its extended reporting window, so no coverage applied.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This employment discrimination case involved Ronnie Johnson, a Black female special education teacher and later assistant principal in the Watson Chapel School District, who sued Superintendent Charles Knight and the school board under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VII, alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation for being repeatedly denied administrative promotions from 1999 onward. After a bench trial, the court found that the defendants intentionally discriminated against Johnson by denying her assistant principal positions for the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 school years, while selecting less qualified or less experienced candidates, and rejected some of the district's stated reasons for the decisions as not credible. The court awarded Johnson $60,064 in lost wages and $150,000 in compensatory damages but entered judgment for the defendants on certain other claims, such as retaliation and athletic director denial. The decision rested on Johnson's evidence that she had superior qualifications and experience compared to those promoted, combined with the district's failure to follow its own personnel policies and inconsistent explanations.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved plaintiff Mary Bearden, a former Purchasing Supervisor at International Paper Co., who was terminated at age 56 after altering an approved requisition to purchase a bicycle for her husband. Bearden asserted claims of sex discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination under the ADEA, pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, and state-law defamation. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that Bearden failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on any claim, including that similarly situated employees were treated differently or that the employer's stated reasons for termination and pay decisions were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Jackson v. Norris, a death-row inmate convicted of murdering a prison guard sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising claims that his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by trial court errors in the penalty phase, ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects, and ineligibility for the death penalty due to mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice after reviewing the state court record. It held that the Arkansas Supreme Court's rejection of the claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA standards, and that evidence including an IQ score of 92 showed Jackson was not mentally retarded. The court further noted that the petitioner had not developed an adequate factual record in state proceedings to support an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

Plaintiffs, commercial tomato growers in eastern Arkansas, sued BASF Corporation under diversity jurisdiction for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging that the herbicide Facet drifted from rice fields and damaged their crops. They asserted claims of negligence in design, manufacture, testing, and remediation, as well as strict liability for a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. The court granted BASF's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption grounds under FIFRA and denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of adding an Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim. The core reasoning was that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law claims, whether in negligence or products liability, that are premised on inadequate labeling or failure to warn, as these would impose requirements different from those approved by the EPA.

environmentfederal powertorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by Arkansas resident Elizabeth Newell against a Canadian trucking company (Global Forwarding), its driver, and an Arkansas auto repair shop (Tolliver’s Body Shop) stemming from a 2002 highway accident. Newell alleged that Global’s truck struck her parked car, causing injury, and that Tolliver’s earlier faulty repairs to the vehicle’s rear end clip contributed to greater damage because the repairs were done negligently rather than as specified. Global removed the case from state court to federal court, arguing that Tolliver’s was fraudulently joined solely to destroy diversity jurisdiction. The court granted Newell’s motion to remand, holding that her negligence claim against Tolliver’s had a reasonable basis in Arkansas law and could be tried together with the claims against Global because the allegations involved common questions of fact and proximate cause.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to Arkansas Code § 6-18-702, which mandates immunizations for school attendance but provides a religious exemption only if immunization conflicts with the tenets of a 'recognized church or religious denomination' of which the parent is a member. Plaintiff Cynthia Boone, whose daughter was suspended for lacking the Hepatitis B vaccine, sought an exemption based on her sincere personal religious objections, but state officials determined she did not qualify because her beliefs were not tied to a recognized religion. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part on the First Amendment claim, denied it on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, and granted the defendants' motion in part. It reasoned that while the state may require vaccinations for schoolchildren, limiting the exemption to adherents of recognized religions impermissibly discriminates among religious beliefs and practices in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

religious libertycivil rightshealthcare

The case concerns a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Riley Dobi Noel, who was convicted in Arkansas state court of three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death for shooting three children in 1995. The petitioner sought an evidentiary hearing and raised multiple grounds for relief, including issues with victim impact evidence, change of venue, improper testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition in full and granted the respondent's motion to preclude witnesses, holding that the claims were either procedurally defaulted without adequate excuse or failed to satisfy the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for overturning state court decisions on the merits or facts. The core reasoning emphasized the strict limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act on federal review of state convictions.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case under the Federal Tort Claims Act involved a claim by the estate of James L. Smith alleging wrongful death from complications following aortic aneurysm surgery at a Veterans Administration Medical Center in 1997. The court, after a bench trial, found that the vascular surgeon breached the applicable standard of care, primarily by failing to dictate a required operative report on his portion of the procedure, which supported an inference of negligence that proximately caused the patient's postoperative complications, paralysis, organ failure, coma, and death. The court awarded the plaintiff $200,000 in damages for the death plus $5,000 for funeral expenses.

torts & liabilityhealthcarefederal power