District Court, M.D. Tennessee — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Lyle v. the Cato Corp.
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010-07-28 · cited 1×
This case is an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Jilriale Lyle, an African American woman, against her former employer The Cato Corporation, a women's clothing retailer. Lyle alleged that she faced racial harassment creating a hostile work environment and that she was suspended and fired in retaliation for complaining about discriminatory comments by her store manager. The court granted summary judgment to Cato on the retaliation claims but denied it on the hostile work environment claims. On the retaliation issue, the court found that the district manager who made the termination decision had investigated the complaints and thereby broke any causal link to the manager's alleged bias. The hostile work environment claims were allowed to proceed to trial because factual disputes remained about whether the alleged racial comments created a legally actionable environment.
labor & employmentcivil rights
People First v. Clover Bottom Developmental Center
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010-05-28 · cited 1×
In this case involving the transition of residents from Clover Bottom Developmental Center under a settlement agreement, the State moved to compel the Quality Review Panel to complete reviews of transition plans within 20 days and to preclude findings against placements at Mur-Ci Homes based on it being a large facility, with an alternative request for declaratory relief allowing choices of congregate care. The United States cross-moved to enforce the agreement by requiring transfers to the most integrated settings. The court noted the lack of an emergency given the State's changed plans for closure but addressed the motions by assuming facts about resident choices and examining the settlement terms regarding community placements.
civil rightsprocedure
St. Thomas Hospital v. Sebelius
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010-03-31 · cited 3×
St. Thomas Hospital sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services to obtain additional Medicare reimbursement for inpatient services furnished to TennCare patients during fiscal year 1996, arguing that these patient days should have been counted in the numerator of the Medicaid fraction used to calculate the hospital's disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment. The Secretary contended that such expansion-population days under a Section 1115 waiver were properly excluded from the calculation and raised threshold defenses including failure to exhaust administrative remedies and collateral estoppel. After reviewing the regulatory background under the Prospective Payment System and the statutory definition of the Medicaid fraction in 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(II), the court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and denied the hospital's cross-motion. The court held that the hospital's claim failed on the merits because the relevant patient days were not required to be included in the DSH adjustment for the period at issue.
healthcarebusiness & regulatory
United States v. Crutcher
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010-02-09 · cited 1×
The case involved the government's post-conviction attempt to obtain a preliminary order of forfeiture for currency seized from Defendant Kenneth Crutcher, who had been convicted by a jury on drug conspiracy and related charges that included a forfeiture allegation under 21 U.S.C. § 853. Although the jury returned a special verdict supporting forfeiture, the original criminal judgment omitted any such provision, and the government did not seek a preliminary order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 before or at sentencing; years later, after the conviction became final on appeal, the government moved for the order and to amend the judgment via Rule 36. The court denied both motions, concluding it lacked authority to circumvent Rule 32.2's procedural requirements at such a late date, while noting that a separate civil forfeiture action remained available to pursue the assets.
criminal lawprocedure
Gentry v. HERSHEY CO.
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2010-02-03 · cited 6×
In Gentry v. Hershey Co., plaintiff Kim Gentry sued The Hershey Company (manufacturer), Petco Animal Supplies (retailer), and Liberty Distribution (distributor) after biting into a York Peppermint Pattie infested with insect larvae at a Petco store in Tennessee, alleging strict product liability under state law and the Restatement (Second) of Torts, breach of express and implied warranties under the UCC, negligence and negligence per se, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment to Hershey and Liberty Distribution on all claims. For Petco, the court granted summary judgment on the strict liability, express warranty, negligence per se, and punitive damages claims but denied it on the remaining negligence and implied warranty claims for compensatory damages. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact showing that the product was defective when it left the control of Hershey or Liberty Distribution, that Petco's practices constituted recklessness supporting punitive damages, or that Petco violated specific statutory duties, while the surviving claims against Petco involved factual disputes about its handling and implied warranties.
torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Ervin v. Nashville Peace and Justice Center
District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2009-11-18 · cited 7×
This case is a pro se employment lawsuit brought by plaintiff Ervin against his former employer, the Nashville Peace and Justice Center, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims except the retaliation claim, which defendants had not addressed, and denying plaintiff's cross-motion. The district court adopted that recommendation in full, entering summary judgment on the race discrimination and other claims while allowing the retaliation claim to proceed. The court refused defendants' request to file a supplemental summary judgment motion on retaliation, reasoning that defendants had received clear notice more than a year earlier that the claim needed to be addressed in any dispositive motion but had failed to do so despite two opportunities. The court further noted that the legal elements of the retaliation claim differ from those of the race discrimination claim and declined to issue an advisory opinion without proper briefing.
labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure