Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit granted Cowabunga's petition for review of the NLRB panel's order concluding that the company violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In light of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), which held that employer-employee agreements did not violate the Act and must be enforced as written, the court reversed the NLRB panel's ruling that Cowabunga violated the NLRA by maintaining and enforcing an employment agreement requiring that employment disputes be resolved through individualized arbitration. In accordance with the NLRB's request, the court vacated the NLRB panel's grant of summary judgment on the prohibiting unfair labor charges claim and remanded it to the NLRB so that it can apply the new standard set forth in The Boeing Co., 365 N.L.R.B. No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017) (abandoning the "reasonably construe" standard) and any other relevant law. Therefore, the court denied the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement. View "Cowabunga, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Wilcox was a corrections officer at McRae Correctional Facility. On July 10, 2009, Wilcox’s coworker, Jackson slapped her on the buttocks. Wilcox filed a formal complaint with the company that operates the Facility that same day. The company told Jackson not to associate with Wilcox or be around her. In the days that followed, Jackson repeatedly rolled his eyes at Wilcox and once punched a metal machine in her presence to intimidate her. On July 23, Wilcox submitted a second complaint, adding that she was afraid he would touch her again, that this was not the first time that he had touched her, and that he stated he could touch her if he wanted to. Wilcox conceded that Jackson never touched her or made any inappropriate comments to her after her July 10 complaint. The company's outside investigator submitted a report finding that Jackson had sexually harassed Wilcox and other coworkers. On September 14, the company fired Jackson. Wilcox later filed suit under Title VII. On remand, a jury returned a verdict for Wilcox of $4,000 in actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the company, finding that the company’s prompt remedial action in response to Wilcox’s complaints barred liability. View "Wilcox v. Corrections Corporation of America" on Justia Law

Autauga, a cooperative that pools and markets farmers’ cotton, claims that the Crosbys breached a marketing agreement when they failed to deliver their promised cotton for 2010 and sought liquidated damages ($1,305,397) under the agreement’s liquidated-damages provision, which provides: the Association shall be entitled to receive for every breach of this agreement for which such equitable relief is unavailable, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the difference between (a) the price of such cotton on the New York futures market during the period beginning with the date of breach or default by the Grower (taking into account the grade, staple, and micronaire of such cotton) and ending with the final delivery by the Association of cotton sold during that year, and (b) the highest price per pound received by the Association for the membership cotton (of the same or nearest grade, staple, and micronaire) sold by it from the same year’s crop. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Alabama law, the provision that Autauga seeks to enforce is not a valid liquidated-damages clause but an impermissible penalty that is void and unenforceable. There is no evidence that the liquidated-damages formula here bears any relation to Autauga’s probable loss. View "Autauga Quality Cotton Association v. Crosby" on Justia Law

The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all charges, except for an unlawful arrest claim, in an action alleging violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. On appeal, Officer Thomas argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and held that the officer did not have arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff where the officer's search did not reveal clothing that matched the perpetrator's, any threatening note resembling what the perpetrator presented at the pharmacies, a face mask, two pill bottles containing a total of six pills, a Walgreens bag, or anything else connecting defendant to the crimes. Furthermore, the officer had been told the readily verifiable exculpatory fact that the perpetrator's multiple tattoos did not match plaintiff's single tattoo. View "Cozzi v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all charges, except for an unlawful arrest claim, in an action alleging violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. On appeal, Officer Thomas argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and held that the officer did not have arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff where the officer's search did not reveal clothing that matched the perpetrator's, any threatening note resembling what the perpetrator presented at the pharmacies, a face mask, two pill bottles containing a total of six pills, a Walgreens bag, or anything else connecting defendant to the crimes. Furthermore, the officer had been told the readily verifiable exculpatory fact that the perpetrator's multiple tattoos did not match plaintiff's single tattoo. View "Cozzi v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's motion to dismiss a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq. The court held that plaintiff's claims were not moot due to the fact that defendant entered into a remediation plan as a result of a settlement between the defendant and a different plaintiff in an almost identical earlier-filed suit. Rather, plaintiff's complaint presented a live case or controversy where there was nothing in the record demonstrating that Hooters has successfully updated the accessibility of its website; some of the relief requested by plaintiff remained outstanding and could be granted by the court; and plaintiff was not a party to the previous settlement. In this case, plaintiff, who is blind and a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, attempted to read and navigate Hooters' website but was unable to do so because the website was not compatible with Screen Reader Software. View "Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for garnishment against the GDAS. The court held that garnishment actions are "suits" under the Eleventh Amendment, Georgia has not waived its immunity to the type of garnishment plaintiff seeks, and Congress has not clearly abrogated the states' immunity to such garnishments. View "Cassady v. Hall" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed an employment discrimination case against US Steel, she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that did not disclose the employment-discrimination claims. The Chapter 7 Trustee was treating the bankruptcy as a “no asset” case. U.S. Steel moved the district court for dismissal. An Eleventh Circuit panel initially affirmed the district court in holding that judicial estoppel required dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Upon rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit overruled precedent “that permitted the inference that a plaintiff intended to make a mockery of the judicial system simply because he failed to disclose a civil claim” and remanded for a determination of whether a plaintiff’s inconsistent statements were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system. When the plaintiff’s inconsistent statement is an omission in bankruptcy disclosures, the court may consider such factors as the plaintiff’s level of sophistication, whether and under what circumstances the plaintiff corrected the disclosures, whether the plaintiff told his bankruptcy attorney about the civil claims before filing the bankruptcy disclosures, whether the trustee or creditors were aware of the claims before the plaintiff amended the disclosures, whether the plaintiff identified other lawsuits to which he was party, any findings or actions by the bankruptcy court after the omission was discovered, and any other fact relevant to the intent inquiry.” View "Slater v. United States Steel Corp." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to exchange counterfeit currency, and dealing in counterfeit currency. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant knew the unlawful object of the conspiracy and intended to deal in counterfeit money. In this case, defendant had ample opportunity to discover that he was dealing in counterfeit money, he shared substantial contacts with a government informant which was enough to facilitate defendant's collaboration with the informant, defendant plainly demonstrated awareness of the transaction's unlawful nature, and defendant was instrumental to the transaction's success. Finally, under the prudent smuggler doctrine, the jury in this case could reasonably infer that the informant would not entrust defendant to close a deal for $632,300 in counterfeit currency without telling defendant not only that he was buying counterfeit currency but also how much he was to receive in exchange for $5,000 in non-counterfeit currency. View "United States v. Cobena Duenas" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's putative class action complaint alleging state law claims for breach of contract and negligence. Plaintiff claimed that because Passport Account customers had agreed only to pay for "expenses incurred in facilitating the execution and clearing" of their trades, RJA's undisclosed profit built into the Processing Fees breached the Passport Agreement. The court held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) did not prohibit plaintiff's putative class action because RJA's alleged failure to disclose the hidden profit built into the Processing Fee was not a misrepresentation of a material fact for purposes of SLUSA. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Brink v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc." on Justia Law