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

Action, a nonprofit organization, filed a series of three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests with the Federal Trade Commission seeking records related to the Commission's guides for the use of product endorsements in advertising. At issue is who should pay the costs of satisfying those requests. The Commission and the district court rejected Action’s claims for fee waivers regarding its first and second FOIA requests, and then concluded that Action’s claims regarding its third request were moot. The court concluded, however, that Action's claims regarding its third request were not moot because the Commission has not produced without charge all the non-exempt documents Action sought in its third request. Therefore, Action's entitlement to a public-interest or news-media fee waiver must be reconsidered in light of the full agency record and the clarifications set out by the court. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Cause of Action v. FTC" on Justia Law

Three associations of home care agencies filed suit challenging the Department's extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., minimum-wage and overtime provisions to employees of third-party agencies who provide companionship services and live-in care within a home. The district court invalidated the Department’s new regulations, concluding that they contravene the terms of the FLSA exemptions. The court concluded, however, that the Supreme Court's decision in Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, confirms that the FLSA vests the Department with discretion to apply (or not to apply) the companionship-services and live-in exemptions to employees of third-party agencies. Therefore, the Department’s decision to extend the FLSA’s protections to those employees is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the statute and is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for the grant of summary judgment to the Department. View "Home Care Ass'n v. Weil" on Justia Law

The union petitioned for review of the Board's conclusion that the union committed unfair labor practices by operating a hiring hall that helped only its own members gain employment. The union operated a referral service for drivers seeking jobs in the entertainment production business in South Carolina. The dispute in this case stems from the employment of drivers for the television show called "Army Wives." The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions that the union’s referral list was open only to its members, that the union refused to refer Thomas Coghill for employment because he was not a member, and that the union would not have added Coghill to its list even it had remained open because he was not a member. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Teamsters Local Union No. 509 v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of travel fraud and wire fraud for a scheme in which he obtained funds from investors and home buyers based on false representations about how the funds would be used, appealed his convictions and sentence, raising several challenges. The court remanded defendant's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to offer certain testimony and evidence to establish Fourth Amendment standing and by failing to move for dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's remaining challenges, including a number of passing suggestions of ineffective assistance of counsel mentioned only in footnotes or conclusory statements in defendant’s briefing. Those passing references, which contain no discussion of the relevant law, are “not enough to raise [those] issue[s] for our review.” View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a real estate developer, alleged that WMATA signed a contractually binding Term Sheet preliminarily selecting plaintiff to develop property above a Metrorail station and giving plaintiff the exclusive right to negotiate a final development agreement. Plaintiff filed suit raising claims related to its allegation that one of WMATA's Board Members, Jim Graham, abused his position and his seat on the Council of the District of Columbia to work behind the scenes with one of plaintiff’s rival bidders to derail WMATA's negotiations with plaintiff. The court concluded that plaintiff adequately stated both contract claims for breach of the exclusivity provision and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Further, plaintiff adequately stated its claim of tortious interference and conspiracy against plaintiff's rival bidder. The court reversed as to these claims. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for fraud against WMATA because it is barred by sovereign immunity. The court held that Graham failed to bear his burden to establish the scope of his official duties and to situate his conduct within its outer perimeter. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance which of Graham’s other actions fell beyond the outer perimeter of his official duties and whether those actions that did fall beyond the outer perimeter, taken together, state claims against Graham for tortious interference and civil conspiracy. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Graham and remanded for further consideration. View "Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham" on Justia Law

Texas appealed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to three intervenors in Texas’s lawsuit under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10304. Rejecting Texas’s cursory “Advisory” argument, the district court granted the motions and awarded fees. The district court held that Texas had conceded virtually all of the issues relevant to the motions for attorneys’ fees by deliberately choosing not to address them. The court affirmed the district court's judgment because "the discretion to enforce this rule lies wholly with the district court," and Texas forfeited any challenge to the district court’s exercise of that discretion by failing to even mention the issue in its opening brief in this court. View "State of Texas v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against DHS, the Department in which the Coast Guard is housed, under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., alleging that it had unlawfully denied her accommodations and terminated her in retaliation for requesting those accommodations. The district court granted summary judgment to the Coast Guard. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff was not a qualified individual able to perform her job duties even with reasonable accommodations and that she had produced no evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find that the Coast Guard retaliated against her. View "Doak v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Department of Homeland Security, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that her supervisor took adverse actions against her on account of her race or because she had previously filed a discrimination complaint against the Department. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department, concluding that the record in this case could not reasonably support a finding that the Department’s stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. View "Walker v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a labor dispute at six nursing homes operated by HealthBridge. The Board concluded that the company's conduct - taking down flyers about HealthBridge being "busted" for "violating labor law," and ordering its workers to remove stickers while working in patient care areas - violated section 8(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). The court rejected HealthBridge’s challenge to the rule that the Board applied in this case because the court lacked jurisdiction where HealthBridge failed to put this issue before the Board; the Board’s conclusion that HealthBridge failed to demonstrate special circumstances in support of its ban is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and the Board’s finding that HealthBridge violated the NLRA by removing the “busted” notices from Union bulletin boards also finds substantial support in the record. Accordingly, the court denied HealthBridge's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "HealthBridge Mgmt. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as the personal representative of Curtis Suggs, filed suit against the District, Symbral, and others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, federal law regulating community residential facilities, and the common law. Suggs died while residing in a group home operated by Symbral, a District contractor. The District appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the section 1983 claims and negligence claims, and against Symbral and Defendants Leon and Yvonne Mohammed, as well as appealed the district court's denial of the District's post-trial motion. After reviewing the record and considering the parties' arguments, the court concluded that the district court did not err in entering summary judgment against the District on plaintiff’s section 1983 claim, and the court affirmed that portion of the decision on review. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his negligence and statutory claims, concluding that those claims are barred under D.C. Code 12-309. Because the district court abused its discretion by excluding causation evidence, the court vacated the damages and remand for reconsideration. View "Harvey v. Mohammed" on Justia Law