CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYRONE GILBERT,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-3456
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:17-cr-00239-1—Solomon Oliver, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 11, 2020
Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

Defendant Tyrone Gilbert seeks to suppress the fruits of a search—namely four kilograms of narcotics, more than $100,000 in cash, a firearm, and other indicia of drug trafficking—because the search warrant that authorized the search of his home purportedly lacked probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because a reasonably well-trained officer in the circumstances presented here would not know to disregard a judicial determination that probable cause existed, the good-faith exception applies. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
REBECCA FOSTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; ALISON DAVISBLAKE,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-1314
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-10781—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Argued: December 4, 2019
Decided and Filed: March 11, 2020
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Rebecca Foster appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, the University of Michigan, and Alison Davis-Blake (collectively, the “University”) on her deliberate-indifference claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688. Foster was the victim of sexual harassment during a University of Michigan Ross School of Business executive MBA program located off-site in Los Angeles, California. After Foster reported that the respondent, a fellow classmate in the program, had sexually harassed her, the University instituted a no-contact and no-retaliation order against him while it investigated her complaint. Foster argues that the University’s response to the respondent’s unwillingness to comply with these measures was clearly unreasonable and caused her to undergo further harassment.

Because we believe that Foster has established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the University was deliberately indifferent to the sexual harassment she suffered at the hands of a fellow student, we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DENNIS J. WILLARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HUNTINGTON FORD, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-1763
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-14202—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 11, 2020
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis J. Willard appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant-Appellee Huntington Ford, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on his age-discrimination claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976. Willard claims that Huntington Ford terminated him because of his age after it fabricated a superficially legitimate reason to terminate him based on an incident between him and another coworker. The district court failed to view the record in the light most favorable to Willard, leading it to conclude erroneously that he did not offer indirect evidence of age discrimination. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.