CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
MICHAEL FISHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 18-5847 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:17-cv-00814—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: May 9, 2019
Decided and Filed: February 27, 2020
Before: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Michael Fisher began working on
Defendant Nissan North America’s factory floor in 2003. Approximately 12 years later, Fisher
went on extended leave for severe kidney disease and, ultimately, a kidney transplant. When he
returned to work, he was still recovering from the transplant, and his attendance suffered. Fisher
proposed several different accommodations, some of which were not provided. When he
received a final written warning about his attendance, he left work and did not return. Fisher
filed suit, centrally claiming that Nissan failed to accommodate his disability and to engage in
the interactive process, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA or the Act), 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to Nissan. Because
material factual disputes remain on some of Fisher’s claims, we AFFIRM in part and
REVERSE in part. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
J.H., by Conservator Betty Harris,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE; STEVE MCMAHAN;
BETSY ADGENT,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 18-5874 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:14-cv-02356—Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge.
Argued: May 8, 2019
Decided and Filed: February 27, 2020
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; STRANCH and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
COLE, Chief Judge. J.H., a 14-year-old boy and pretrial detainee, was placed in
segregated housing in Williamson County’s juvenile detention facility after three other juveniles
alleged that he threatened to assault them. J.H. alleges that his placement in segregated housing
from November 17 to December 19, 2013, amounted to unconstitutional punishment through the
means of solitary confinement. He also alleges that a Williamson County detention monitor,
Juan Cruz, sexually assaulted him during this period; that this assault was a direct result of
Williamson County’s failure to train Cruz; and that during his placement in segregated housing,
detention facility officials failed to provide adequate medical care. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Williamson County and officials Steve McMahan and Betsy
Adgent. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JOHN M. HIGGINS; CAROL HIGGINS; WEATHERGUARD,
INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KENTUCKY SPORTS RADIO, LLC; MATTHEW H. JONES;
DREW FRANKLIN,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 19-5409 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:18-cv-00043—Joseph M. Hood, District Judge.
Argued: January 30, 2020
Decided and Filed: February 27, 2020
Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Americans take college sports seriously, sometimes too
seriously. John Higgins refereed an Elite Eight game of the NCAA Basketball Tournament in
2017. The close contest between the Kentucky Wildcats and the North Carolina Tar Heels ended
when the Tar Heels scored with less than a second on the clock. Kentucky’s coach was not
happy and thought the referees, John Higgins in particular, had done his team no favors. The
Kentucky faithful, the fans that is, were even less happy. Before long, Higgins’ roofing business
suffered losses of its own, after he became the target of an online campaign orchestrated by
Kentucky fans who pinned the loss on Higgins. Higgins returned the favor by suing Kentucky
Sports Radio and some of its contributors for his business losses, alleging that their post-game
coverage of him and his roofing business incited the harassment. But the First Amendment
safeguards the radio station’s right to comment on Higgins’ performance and the fans’ reaction
to it and that is so even if the station and its hosts might have exercised their First Amendment
rights more responsibly. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of his claims. |
|