Robert L. Echols

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

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 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

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

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

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

This case involved an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Sheila Gibson-Holmes against Fifth Third Bank after her position as a foreign exchange trader in Nashville was eliminated as part of a cost-cutting reduction in force that closed one of three regional desks. The plaintiff alleged that the Nashville desk was selected for closure because of her gender, citing various incidents of alleged unfair treatment and credit-stealing by male managers during her employment. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing the bank's stated reason for the closure was pretextual or that the decision-makers harbored discriminatory animus, noting that mere speculation about gender bias was insufficient to overcome summary judgment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a certified class of mentally retarded Tennessee residents eligible for Medicaid services through ICF/MR facilities or HCBS waivers, who alleged they were denied applications, services, or faced long waiting lists. The parties had entered a 2004 Settlement Agreement to address enrollment and services, which was set to expire December 31, 2009. Following a Sixth Circuit remand reversing in part a prior denial of a motion to vacate, the district court granted defendants' motion to vacate in limited respects consistent with the appellate decision, such as relieving obligations to develop provider network capacity or eliminate the waiting list entirely. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs', holding that defendants must enroll eligible individuals into available waiver slots with reasonable promptness only to the extent slots and funding exist within federally approved caps, without authority to order more than the Medicaid Act or budgets require.

civil rightshealthcareprocedure

This case involves claims brought by Kimberly Lopez on behalf of her disabled son Gilberto, a special-needs student in the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, alleging he was raped by another student on a school bus and that Metro and private contractor Genesis Learning Centers failed to provide adequate supervision or a bus monitor despite prior complaints of harassment. The United States intervened, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment along with numerous procedural motions concerning discovery, remand of state-law tort claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, and related matters. The court denied the plaintiffs' and intervenor's summary judgment motions, granted summary judgment to Metro and Genesis on the federal claims, denied the motion to remand the TGTLA claims, and resolved the ancillary motions by denying most requests to strike or for additional briefing while granting limited extensions. The core reasoning centered on the absence of genuine disputes of material fact supporting liability and the court's discretion over supplemental jurisdiction and procedural issues.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involved American National Property and Casualty Company seeking a preliminary injunction against its former captive insurance agents, Tommy and Colleen Campbell and their companies, for allegedly breaching a 2005 agent agreement by competing and misusing client files after termination. The court granted the injunction on the claims for breach of contract and violation of the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The core reasoning was that the agreement's one-year non-solicitation and non-compete provisions were enforceable to protect the company's legitimate interests in customer contacts and trade secrets, the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the merits along with irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest favored enforcement of valid contracts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns five families suing the Wilson County Board of Education and school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Policy 1.806 (amended 2007) violates their First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights, both facially and as applied to posters they wish to display in the Lakeview Elementary School lobby and hallway announcing noncurricular religious events such as See You At The Pole and the National Day of Prayer. The suit follows the prior Doe v. Wilson County School Sys. decision, which addressed Establishment Clause violations but did not resolve these free speech issues. After an evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the policy grants unbridled discretion and permits viewpoint discrimination against religious speech, unless any restricting regulation is reasonable, viewpoint-neutral, and consistent with federal law, while requiring compliance with content-neutral time, place, and manner rules.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

The case involves a plaintiff suing under ERISA to challenge the termination of his long-term disability benefits by the Nortel Networks disability plan administered by Prudential. The plaintiff, a systems design engineer, claimed total disability due to chronic low back pain radiating to his legs, along with other conditions, supported by medical records including MRIs, EMG studies, and treatments like epidural injections. The court reviewed the administrative record and the plan's definition of disability, which required objective clinical evidence and distinguished between the initial 18-month period and the any-occupation standard thereafter. The court decided to reverse the termination of benefits effective May 18, 2005, and remanded the matter for a full and fair inquiry into whether the plaintiff was totally disabled under the plan.

labor & employmenthealthcare

Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe sued the Wilson County School System on behalf of their son, alleging that Lakeview Elementary School engaged in a pattern of endorsing Christian religious activities and beliefs in violation of the Establishment Clause, and sought permanent injunctive relief to stop such practices. The court held a bench trial and reviewed evidence including school policies on facility use, employee involvement in events like Praying Parents meetings, holiday programs, and distribution of religious materials, as well as stipulated facts and exhibits. The opinion details findings on the school's operations, the family's background, and specific incidents involving administrators and teachers to assess whether the activities constituted official promotion of religion. The core reasoning focused on distinguishing permissible student religious expression from school endorsement while applying relevant constitutional standards.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involved the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) bringing an enforcement action against Wolfgang J. Fastian and Foreign Fund for soliciting over $7.7 million from retail customers for purported foreign currency futures trading between 2003 and 2004. The court found that customer funds were not traded as promised but instead misappropriated through e-gold and other accounts in a Ponzi-like scheme, with Fastian hosting the website, accessing accounts, and making unauthorized payments to himself and others, violating Sections 4b(a)(2)(i) and (iii) of the Commodity Exchange Act and related CFTC regulations. The court entered a permanent injunction barring Fastian from further violations, ordered restitution and disgorgement of misappropriated funds, and imposed a $240,000 civil monetary penalty, retaining jurisdiction for enforcement. The decision rested on evidence from the complaint, summary judgment filings, trial testimony, and findings that Foreign Fund was not a regulated counterparty eligible to offer such transactions to non-eligible participants.

business & regulatory

The case involved parents suing the Wilson County School System on behalf of their child, claiming that Lakeview Elementary School engaged in a pattern of endorsing Christianity through activities such as teacher-led prayers, distribution of religious materials, and school-sponsored events like See You at the Pole and meetings by the Praying Parents group, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to stop these practices while affirming students' rights to private prayer and expression. The court denied the defendants' and intervenor-defendants' motions for summary judgment. It reasoned that the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, showed disputed facts and evidence of school employees' involvement in religious activities that could be seen as official promotion of religion rather than neutral observance under school policy.

religious libertycivil rights

This case involves a bankruptcy appeal concerning the plan administrator's efforts to avoid and recover certain payments made by the debtor restaurant group to its food supplier, Proficient Food Company, as preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) and unauthorized post-petition transfers under § 549. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's final judgment in favor of the plan administrator for $519,077.63. The court held that neither a prior critical vendor order nor the doctrines of res judicata and judicial estoppel barred the avoidance action, that the payments at issue satisfied pre-petition claims, and that post-petition deliveries did not support a defense under § 549(b) because they did not provide new value in exchange for the transfers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves PHG Technologies suing St. John Companies for alleged infringement of two design patents (the '405 and '197 patents) covering medical label sheets, along with claims to protect the EasylD trademark. St. John moved for summary judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), asserting that sheets with the patented configuration had been offered for sale more than one year before the critical filing date. The court denied St. John's motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the prior activities amounted to a commercial offer for sale or qualified as experimental use. PHG's cross-motion for partial summary judgment was granted on issues such as the absence of an implied license but denied on the infringement and trademark claims due to unresolved affirmative defenses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves claims by a mother and her minor child against Tennessee Department of Children’s Services employees alleging that the child's removal from the mother's custody in March 2004 violated substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, involved an improper seizure without adequate investigation, placed the child in an unsafe foster environment, and exposed her to unwelcome religious beliefs. The court dismissed the mother's claims as barred by Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions, which began running when the child was removed, and rejected arguments for a continuing violation. It also dismissed one defendant by agreement and denied the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds without prejudice, allowing the minor child an opportunity to amend her complaint with sufficient factual allegations to support any clearly established constitutional claims. The core reasoning focused on the timing of the claims, the lack of specific facts in the amended complaint regarding the child's rights, and Sixth Circuit precedent on pleading requirements for qualified immunity.

civil rightsfamily lawreligious libertyprocedure

This case was a contract dispute between Avalon Health Care, LLC and Trustmark Insurance Company (with RMTS, LLC) over stop-loss insurance policies covering Avalon's employee benefit plan, under which Trustmark agreed to reimburse claims exceeding a $50,000 specific deductible or aggregate threshold. Avalon sought reimbursement for over $114,000 in claims for two employees that were incurred in 2004 but paid by the plan administrator in April 2005, after the March 31, 2005 payment deadline specified in the Letter of Understanding. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, citing the missed payment window and arguing RMTS was not a party to the contracts. The court denied the motion, holding that the contracts were ambiguous and could be read in harmony with a clause allowing payment for eligible benefits submitted as soon as reasonably possible, with ambiguities construed against the drafter, and that allegations against RMTS had to be accepted as true at this stage.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

PHG Technologies sued St. John Companies for infringing its design patents on medical label sheets and for trademark infringement related to its EasylD software. St. John asserted counterclaims for unfair competition, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment, alleging that PHG made false promises about software compatibility, refused to modify software for competitors' labels, and pursued bad-faith patent litigation to force purchases of its own products at inflated prices. The court granted PHG's motion to dismiss the three counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the allegations centered on PHG's lawful enforcement of its patents, which does not constitute wrongful conduct, and that no independent tort or cognizable claim under Tennessee law was adequately pled. The court also denied St. John's request to amend, as it was not made by separate motion.

business & regulatorytorts & liability