Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellants, holders of senior notes issued by Washington Mutual - a failed bank - sought to intervene in litigation between Deutsche Bank, the FDIC (Washington Mutual's receiver), and J.P. Morgan Chase. The district court denied intervention under Rule 24. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing and affirmed the district court's denial of intervention. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust v. FDIC, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that her employer denied her a promotion and a transfer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for the government. The court concluded that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence that, when taken together, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the Secretary's proffered reason for cancelling the Lead Developmental Disabilities Specialist position plaintiff was seeking was pretext for racial discrimination. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government on the Executive Assistance detail claim because plaintiff failed to make a showing that the government's proffered explanation was pretext for racial discrimination. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Evans v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to crossing state lines to have sex with a minor. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. Defendant argued that the district court erred when it applied a sentencing enhancement based on his use of a computer to facilitate his crime. The court held that defendant waived this challenge when he stipulated to the enhancement in his plea agreement and raised no objection to its inclusion in the district court's calculation of his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Laslie" on Justia Law

This case arose from actions taken by the Commission approving an application by Southern for combined licenses to construct and operate new Units 3 and 4 of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant and an application by Westinghouse for an amendment to its already-approved reactor design on which the Vogtle application relied. After the close of the combined-license hearing record, petitioners sought to reopen the hearing to litigate contentions relating to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex in Japan. The court held that the Commission acted reasonably in denying petitioners' contentions where the Task Force Report, studying the implications of the Fukushima accident for the United States, alone was not a "new and significant" circumstance requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement and petitioners' contentions lacked specific links between the Fukushima Accident and the Vogtle Site. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Blue Ridge Env. Defense League, et al v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al" on Justia Law

In 2007, FERC granted various rate incentives to encourage the construction of three projects by SoCal Edison. The beneficial rate treatment included incentives to be added to a base rate of return for the projects. Later that year, SoCal Edison filed revisions to its transmission tariff, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d, to reflect changes to its transmission revenue requirements and rates, implementing the rate incentives and proposing a base return on equity (ROE). The Commission concluded that SoCal Edison's base ROE should be set at the median, rather than the midpoint as SoCal Edison proposed, of the range established by a proxy group of publicly-traded companies, and that the ROE for the locked-in period should be updated to reflect the most recently available financial data. SoCal Edison petitioned for review, challenging the Commission's conclusions. The court denied the petition as to the Commission's methodology for measuring the ROE, and the court granted the petition and remanded in view of the Commission's failure to comply with 5 U.S.C. 556(e) when it updated the ROE with information outside the record. View "So. California Edison Co. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on one count of possession of powder cocaine with intent to distribute. Defendant contended that the arresting officers violated his right against self-incrimination; that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel; and that the district court failed to comply with certain procedural requirements at sentencing. The court concluded that, even assuming the admission of defendant's statement and head nod was error, the error was harmless; even if defendant's counsel's failure to renew the suppression motion was deficient under Strickland v. Washington, defendant could not show a substantial likelihood of a different result; and defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Brinson-Scott" on Justia Law

The Board declared a rule that employers subject to its jurisdiction would be guilty of an unfair labor practice if they did not post on their properties and on their websites a "Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act." Trade associations and other organizations representing employers filed complaints in the district court, claiming that the Board's rule violated the National Labor Relations Act 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., and the First Amendment to the Constitution. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the time of filing with the Office of the Federal Register was the appropriate time for determining whether the Board had a valid quorum. That the Board may have lost a quorum before its rule was published did not render its rule invalid. On the merits, the court concluded that the Board's rule violated section 8(c) because it made an employer's failure to post the Board's notice an unfair labor practice, and because it treated such a failure as evidence of an unfair labor practice. Further, the Board's tolling rule was contrary to section 10(b). Accordingly, the court vacated the Board's posting rule. View "Nat'l Assoc. of Manufacturers, et al v. NLRB, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment against her claims of age and sex discrimination in the workplace. The district court credited the defense of plaintiff's employer that she was let go during a restructuring of the firm only because her expertise was not a good fit with the firm's new business focus. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff - including a productivity spreadsheet that included the age of each employee - the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the employer's defense to be a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Barnett v. PA Consulting Group, Inc." on Justia Law