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 Following additional proceedings, but before final judgment, Congress repealed the challenged program.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.