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

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed an appeal by Dr. LeThenia Joy Baker against her former employer, Upson Regional Medical Center. Dr. Baker alleged that Upson violated the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by providing her a less favorable bonus compensation structure than that of her male colleague. Though Upson admitted that Dr. Baker was paid less than her male colleague, they argued that the pay disparity was due to the male doctor's greater experience, not his gender. The district court ruled in favor of Upson, stating that the EPA claim failed as Upson established a defense that the bonus structure, which paid Dr. Baker less than her comparator, was based on factors other than sex.The Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court's decision, stating that Upson had met its burden of proving that the difference in bonus compensation was based on factors other than sex. The court clarified that under the EPA, it only consists of a two-step analysis. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case showing that she performed substantially similar work for less pay. Second, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the pay differential was justified under one of the Equal Pay Act’s statutory exceptions. If the employer fails, the plaintiff wins. The plaintiff is not required to prove discriminatory intent on the part of the defendant. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find in favor of Dr. Baker on the question of whether her sex was considered in the different bonus structure she agreed to. View "Baker v. Upson Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

This case, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, involved an insurance dispute concerning coverage for defects and delays in the construction of an office building. Riverside Avenue Partners, Ltd. contracted with the Auchter Company to construct the building. After experiencing delays and water intrusion, Riverside Avenue Partners sued Auchter and its surety, Arch Insurance Company. Auchter and Arch filed a third-party complaint against TSG Industries, the window subcontractor, and other subcontractors. TSG's insurer, Landmark American Insurance Company, initially recognized Auchter as an additional insured but later refused to defend them, leading Amerisure, Auchter’s primary insurance provider, to defend Auchter under a reservation of rights.Upon review, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's purported final judgment in the case, which favored Amerisure, did not dispose of all claims against all parties, so it was not final. Specifically, Landmark's crossclaim against TSG, stating it had no duty to defend or indemnify TSG in the underlying action, remained unresolved. Despite Amerisure's post-argument briefing suggestion that the declaratory judgments issued below fully answered questions related to Landmark's obligations to TSG, the court maintained that the claims against TSG were still pending, thus lacking jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and recommended the unresolved matters to the attention of the district court on remand. View "Amerisure Insurance Company v. Landmark American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case pertains to Thomas Ukoshovbera A. Gbenedio, a licensed pharmacist, who was charged with 72 counts of unlawful drug dispensing and one count of refusing an inspection of his pharmacy, essentially operating a "pill mill." The district court sentenced Gbenedio to 188 months of imprisonment and imposed a $200,000 fine.Gbenedio appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment due to insufficient notice of the charges against him, and in making certain evidentiary rulings. He also contested the fine imposed, stating he was unable to pay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the indictment provided enough facts for Gbenedio to understand the charges against him. It also deemed the district court's evidentiary rulings as non-abusive and found that Gbenedio failed to prove his inability to pay the fine. View "USA v. Gbenedio" on Justia Law

The case involves Andre Dubois, who was convicted on several federal firearm offenses. These offenses arose when Dubois attempted to ship a box containing firearms from Georgia to Dominica. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was asked to address five issues on appeal.Firstly, the court dismissed Dubois's argument that a recent Supreme Court case overturned the precedent upholding a ban on felons possessing firearms. The court held that the Supreme Court case did not abrogate the precedent, and therefore Dubois's argument failed.Secondly, the court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Dubois knew he was in possession of a firearm.Thirdly, the court found that Dubois's prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana under Georgia law qualified as a "controlled substance offense" under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, triggering a higher base offense level.Fourthly, the court rejected Dubois's argument that the application of a sentencing enhancement for possession of a stolen gun violated his due process rights.Finally, the court held that the district court had not erred in imposing a $25,000 fine on Dubois, as there was sufficient evidence to suggest that he could afford to pay the fine.Therefore, Dubois's convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "USA v. Dubois" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiffs, Honeyfund.com Inc, Chevara Orrin, Whitespace Consulting LLC, and Primo Tampa LLC, challenged a Florida law known as the Individual Freedom Act. This law bans certain mandatory workplace trainings that espouse or promote a set of beliefs related to race, color, sex, or national origin deemed offensive by the state. The plaintiffs asserted that the Act violated their rights to free speech and was both vague and overbroad. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, with the understanding that the Act was both unconstitutionally vague and an unlawful content- and viewpoint-based speech restriction. Florida appealed this decision.The appellate court held that the Act was indeed a violation of the First Amendment. The court rejected Florida's argument that the Act regulated conduct, not speech, noting that the Act's restrictions were based on the content and viewpoint of the speech in the prohibited meetings. The court applied strict scrutiny, determining that the Act was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. It also rejected Florida’s attempt to tie the Act to Title VII, a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination, stating that having similar asserted purposes did not make the two laws equivalent. The plaintiffs' claim of irreparable injury due to an ongoing violation of the First Amendment was also acknowledged. The court thus affirmed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining the operation of the provision. View "Honeyfund.Com Inc v. Governor, State of Florida" on Justia Law

In 2002, Michael David Carruth was convicted and sentenced to death for four counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted murder, first-degree burglary, and first-degree robbery in Alabama. Carruth appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, which raised six main issues. These included allegations of ineffective trial counsel for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of his trial, and ineffective appellate counsel for failing to notify him of further available appellate proceedings and to argue that the prosecution engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Carruth also argued that he was deprived of his right to an impartial jury and due process of law due to premature jury deliberations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit examined all the issues and affirmed the district court's denial of Carruth's habeas corpus petition. The circuit court determined that Carruth's claims did not survive deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, as the state court's adjudications were not contrary to federal law, nor did they involve an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court also held that Carruth's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred because it was not properly raised and preserved at the state level. The circuit court concluded that the nature of the crimes and the strength of the evidence against Carruth outweighed any potential mitigating evidence that may have been presented. View "Michael David Carruth v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a class action lawsuit that involved a life insurance policy dispute between plaintiff Worth Johnson and defendant Protective Life Insurance Company. Johnson alleged that Protective breached its contract by not reassessing and adjusting its cost of insurance (COI) rates based exclusively on expectations of future mortality experience. The district court granted Protective’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Protective did not breach its insurance contract.On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, agreeing that the policy did not require Protective to reassess and redetermine its COI rates based exclusively on its expectations as to future mortality experience. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Johnson's alternative claim that Protective did reassess and redetermine its COI rates, but ignored its expectations as to future mortality experience when doing so. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. View "Johnson v. Protective Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had to apply Florida tort law to a dispute concerning the collapse of a crane boom. The plaintiff, NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services, Inc., an insurer of the crane's owner, sued the defendants, Liebherr-America, Inc., a distributor and servicer of the type of crane in question, for over $1.7 million in damages resulting from the collapse. The defendants argued that they were shielded from liability by Florida’s economic loss rule. The magistrate judge, after a five-day bench trial, rejected this argument. The court of appeals found Florida law unclear on this issue and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.The facts of the case involved a crane purchased by Sims Crane & Equipment Company from a non-party broker, which was manufactured by Liebherr Werk Ehingen GMbH. Two Sims crane operators received training from a Liebherr-America employee, which involved swapping out different configurations of the crane boom. However, the training was inadequate and did not provide sufficient information about the proper placement of specific pins which, if misadjusted, could cause the crane boom to collapse. When the crane boom did collapse during a construction project, causing a fatality and damage to the crane, NBIS filed a negligence suit against Liebherr-America.The key issue in the case was whether Florida’s economic loss rule, which generally limits recovery in tort cases to situations where there is damage to other property or personal injury, and not just economic loss, applied in this case. The defendants argued that the rule should apply because the plaintiff’s negligence claims were akin to failure to warn theories found in products liability law, which fall within the scope of the rule. The plaintiff argued that the rule should not apply because this was not a product liability case asserting a product defect, but rather a case alleging negligent services provided by the defendants. Because the court found Florida law unclear on this issue, it certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. View "NBIS Construction & Transport Insurance Services, v. Liebherr-America, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Raquan Emahl Gray was convicted of conspiracy to commit a controlled-substances offense, after helping transport a car filled with drugs to a state prison. Gray appealed his conviction, arguing that the government failed to prove that he knowingly possessed a Schedule II controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, rather than a controlled substance generally. The appeals court affirmed Gray's conviction, holding that the government only needed to prove general knowledge to obtain a controlled-substances conviction, which it did. Gray also argued that the district court erred when it denied his renewed motion for judgment of acquittal due to his failure to timely renew the motion at the conclusion of the evidence. The appeals court acknowledged that Gray's renewed motion was timely, but deemed the district court's error as harmless because enough evidence supported Gray's conviction. View "United States v. Gray" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case of Everett Tripodis, who had appealed his sentence from the Northern District of Georgia. Tripodis was involved in a scheme of stealing and reselling luxury vehicles. After being indicted on multiple counts, he pleaded guilty to a conspiracy offense under a negotiated plea agreement. As per the agreement, the government was to recommend a 60-month prison sentence, but the agreement did not make explicit mention of supervised release. At sentencing, a three-year term of supervised release was imposed, and Tripodis appealed, arguing that this was not part of the plea agreement.The court, however, affirmed the sentence. It found that the plea agreement was unambiguous and only committed the government to recommend a 60-month custodial sentence. There was no mention of supervised release, and the agreement’s silence on this issue did not bind the government to any promise regarding it. The court also noted that during the plea hearing, Tripodis was informed that he could be subject to a term of supervised release and he affirmed his understanding of this. Therefore, the court concluded that the government did not breach the plea agreement by recommending supervised release, and the district court did not err in imposing it. The court did, however, advise the government to be clearer in future plea agreements about what it is promising and what it is not. View "USA v. Tripodis" on Justia Law