CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MAKINI JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GENESEE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-1334
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:18-cv-11199—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Argued: January 14, 2021
Decided and Filed: May 27, 2021
Before: SILER, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Makini Jackson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to her former employer defendant Genesee County Road Commission (“GCRC”). Jackson claims that GCRC terminated her employment in retaliation for her investigations of employees’ claims of racial discrimination and her attempts to ensure that GCRC’s contracts complied with equal employment opportunity regulations. The district court granted GCRC’s motion for summary judgment because it found that Jackson had failed to prove that she engaged in protected activity and had not established causation. Because Jackson engaged in protected activity and there remains a genuine factual dispute as to causation, we reverse.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CARHARTT, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INNOVATIVE TEXTILES, INC.; INNOVATIVE TEXTILES, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-1826
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 5:17-cv-13604—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2021
Decided and Filed: May 27, 2021
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge, CLAY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Carhartt sued its fabric supplier, Innovative Textiles, for breach of contract and breach of warranty, among other claims, after discovering alleged defects in Innovative’s flame-resistant fabric. The sole issue on appeal is whether Carhartt failed to notify Innovative of the alleged breach within a reasonable time after Carhartt should have discovered the breach. The district court granted summary judgment to Innovative, holding that Carhartt was barred from seeking any remedy under Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Code § 440.2607(3) because Carhartt’s notification was too late. Because reasonable minds could differ as to whether Carhartt should have discovered the breach sooner—whether Carhartt should have been performing regular, destructive fire-resistance testing on the fabric it received from Innovative—we REVERSE and REMAND for a jury to decide this question.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANTHONY DAUNT, TOM BARRETT, AARON BEAUCHINE, KATHY BERDEN, STEPHEN DAUNT, GERRY HILDENBRAND, GARY KOUTSOUBOS, LINDA LEE TARVER, PATRICK MEYERS, MARIAN SHERIDAN, MARY SHINKLE, NORM SHINKLE, PAUL SHERIDAN, BRIDGET BEARD, CLINT TARVER (19-cv-00614),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY (19-cv-00669),
Plaintiff,
v.
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State; COUNT MI VOTE, doing business as Voters Not Politicians,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-1734
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
Nos. 1:19-cv-00614; 1:19-cv-00669—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: March 17, 2021
Decided and Filed: May 27, 2021
Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Even before the Supreme Court declared the issue of partisan gerrymandering a nonjusticiable political question in Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 (2019), some states had begun to address the issue head on. This case involves one such endeavor: Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (the “Commission”), which was established by ballot initiative in the state’s 2018 general election. The Commission is composed of thirteen registered voters—eight who affiliate with the state’s two major political parties (four per party) and five who are unaffiliated with those parties—who must satisfy various eligibility criteria designed to ensure that they lack certain political ties.

Plaintiffs here are Michigan citizens who allege that they are unconstitutionally excluded from serving on the Commission by its eligibility criteria, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They appeal the district court’s dismissal of their Complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We rejected similar—if not identical—arguments to those that Plaintiffs raise here when we affirmed the district court’s earlier denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in Daunt v. Benson, 956 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2020) (“Daunt I”). Plaintiffs’ arguments are no more persuasive this time around. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Commission’s eligibility criteria do not offend the First or Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.