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.