CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTIN MENDYK, and KHADIJA COLE,
individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated;
HYON PAK; MICHELLE DAVISON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees (21-1407),
v.
SAS INSTITUTE, INC. fka SAS Analytics Inc.,
Defendant,
FAST ENTERPRISES, LLC; CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees (21-2672),
STEVEN GESKEY; SHARON MOFFETT-MASSEY,
Defendants-Appellants (21-1407),
Defendants-Appellees (21-2672),
SUZETTE MARIE HEATHCOTE,
Proposed Intervenor-Appellant (21-2672). |
Nos. 21-1407/2672 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-10657—David M. Lawson, District Judge.
Case 21-1407 Argued: April 26, 2023
Decided and Filed: June 15, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. The modernization of Michigan’s process for identifying fraud
in unemployment benefits, according to four residents of the State, came with a cost: It
undermined their due process rights. The four residents all obtained unemployment benefits, and
the State’s new software for identifying unemployment fraud targeted them but did not
immediately deprive them of any benefits. They sued two Unemployment Insurance Agency
supervisors, among many others. In the first stage of this case, the complaint and proffered class
action covered claims in which the State terminated welfare payments without adequate notice
and a hearing. But at this stage in the case, after the denial of a motion to certify a class and with
just four plaintiffs remaining, the lawsuit covers only claims in which the State offers several
procedural protections before any elimination of benefits. Because the remaining plaintiffs have
failed to show that these procedures violate any clearly established law, the supervisors are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Suzette Heathcote separately appeals the denial of her
motion to intervene in the case. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
her motion untimely, we affirm that order. |
|