CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
GARY MCNEAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BLUE ASH, OHIO; DAVID WALTZ, individually
and in his official capacity as City Manager of the
City of Blue Ash; SCOTT NOEL, individually and in his
official capacity as Chief of the Blue Ash Police
Department,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 23-3180 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:19-cv-01072—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 23, 2024
Before: WHITE, THAPAR, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gary McNeal appeals the grant
of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees—the City of Blue Ash, David Waltz, and Scott
Noel—in this action stemming from the alleged humiliation, scrutiny, and discipline McNeal
experienced in the final years of his employment as a police officer and the termination of that
employment. Because McNeal cannot show that age was the “but-for” reason for the
termination of his employment, we AFFIRM the district court as to that claim, but we
REVERSE on McNeal’s claim of a hostile work environment against Blue Ash. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
ROBERT HOLMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture; ZACH DUCHENEAUX, in his official
capacity as Administrator of the Farm Service
Agency,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 23-5493 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson.
No. 1:21-cv-01085—S. Thomas Anderson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 23, 2024
Before: STRANCH, LARSEN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns a litigant’s petition for fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Plaintiff Robert Holman successfully obtained a
preliminary injunction freezing a debt-relief program that used racial categories to remedy prior
discrimination against farmers and ranchers. Following additional proceedings, but before final
judgment, Congress repealed the challenged program. Holman now seeks fees associated with
the litigation. The district court denied that request because, in its view, Holman was not a
“prevailing party” under the EAJA. We neither adopt nor definitively reject that conclusion.
Instead, we find that the Government’s position during the litigation was “substantially justified”
within the EAJA’s meaning. On that basis, we AFFIRM the judgment below. |
|