The EEOC sued Teleservices Marketing Corp. under Title VII on behalf of employee Babiker, alleging he was terminated from a telemarketing campaign due to his Sudanese national origin after a client complained about his accent and English. TMC moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue of material fact existed on the discrimination claim. The court denied the motion, holding that evidence—including the supervisor's testimony that the client's issue was Babiker's accent, the fact that Babiker had been recruited back to the company earlier, and declarations showing others with non-American accents were not terminated—created triable questions on whether TMC's stated reason was pretext for unlawful discrimination.
This case involved the United States suing Austin Two Tracts, L.P. to enforce a flowage easement on the defendant's 11.44-acre property by requiring removal of gravel, dirt, and fill material placed within the easement boundaries below 573 feet mean sea level, which was part of the Grapevine Dam and Reservoir project. The defendant admitted placing the material but filed a counterclaim seeking to modify or relocate the easement through equitable relief or reformation of the deed. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding the easement's location or the placement of fill, and ordered removal of the material. It dismissed the counterclaim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that sovereign immunity barred reformation claims under the Quiet Title Act and other cited statutes without an express waiver.
In this insurance coverage dispute, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, custom home builder Steve Roberts Custom Builders, Inc., in an underlying lawsuit brought by homeowners whose driveway encroached on neighboring property due to the failure to secure an easement. The builder counterclaimed, seeking a declaration of coverage and penalties under the Texas Insurance Code. Applying Texas's eight-corners rule to the commercial general liability policy, the court held that the underlying petition alleged an occurrence resulting in property damage and that no policy exclusions applied, so Mt. Hawley had a duty to defend; the duty to indemnify was not yet ripe. The court also ruled that Mt. Hawley's refusal to defend triggered statutory penalties under Article 21.55. The motions were resolved accordingly, with the insurer's request denied and the insured's partial motion granted.
This case involved orthodontist Anthony Viazis, who invented and patented triangular brackets and alleged that the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO), Southwestern Society of Orthodontists, GAC International, and Leo Dohn conspired to punish him for comparative advertising of his product, leading to the breakdown of his exclusive distribution agreement with GAC. Viazis claimed this conduct violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the orthodontic bracket market. The court granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial. It reasoned that Viazis failed to present sufficient evidence of a conspiracy among the defendants or of actual harm to competition, as opposed to harm only to his own business interests, and that the AAO's code enforcement and related actions did not meet the legal standards for antitrust liability under precedents like Culberson v. American Medical International.
The case involves a judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's termination of supplemental security income benefits originally awarded to the plaintiff in 1980 due to mental impairment and seizures. The ALJ found medical improvement related to the plaintiff's ability to work, ending her disability status as of 1998, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending remand, determining that the ALJ should have recontacted the plaintiff's treating physician for clarification on his opinion against her ability to work, properly evaluated conflicting IQ and functional assessments from examining doctors, and obtained additional vocational expert testimony to address the plaintiff's limitations and lack of representation at the hearing.
The case concerned whether S&S Consolidated I.S.D. and two school employees violated the substantive due process rights of elementary student Jane Doe, who had a history of severe emotional disturbance, self-harm, and violent outbursts stemming from prior abuse, by wrapping her in a blanket to restrain her during behavioral incidents at school. The court held that the defendants' conduct did not amount to a constitutional violation under the circumstances presented. It further concluded that the plaintiff's related federal and state-law claims failed as a matter of law, including because school personnel were entitled to immunity under Texas Education Code § 22.051 and had no actionable duty to report abuse that they did not believe occurred. The opinion emphasized the student's documented needs for behavioral management and the absence of evidence showing the restraint was arbitrary or conscience-shocking.
