CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
RICCY MABEL ENRIQUEZ-PERDOMO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICARDO A. NEWMAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-6393
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:18-cv-00549—Charles R. Simpson, III, District Judge.
Argued: July 22, 2021
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2022
Before: BATCHELDER, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Riccy Enriquez-Perdomo appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against Defendants-Appellees United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers Ricardo Newman, Joseph Phelps, John Korkin, and Shawn Byers (collectively, “Defendants”), brought under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed Enriquez-Perdomo’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Enriquez-Perdomo’s First Amendment retaliation claim, VACATE the judgment with respect to her other claims, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SHAINA M. KIRKLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MARYVILLE, TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 21-5569
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:19-cv-00312—Clifton Leland Corker, District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2022
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2022
Before: GUY, THAPAR, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Shaina Kirkland served as a patrol officer with the City of Maryville’s police department. While in that role, Kirkland periodically used her Facebook account to criticize the county sheriff. Kirkland’s supervisors became concerned that her posts would undermine the Department’s relationship with their sister law enforcement agency. So they asked her to stop. They also reprimanded her for other behavioral issues.

Matters came to a head following a Facebook post by Kirkland claiming the sheriff had excluded her from a training event because she was female and opposed his reelection. At that point, the City fired Kirkland. Kirkland responded by suing the City, alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, Title VII, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in the City’s favor. We now affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION.
___________________________________________

TRAVIS ABBOTT; JULIE ABBOTT,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 21-3418
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
Nos. 2:13-md-02433; 2:17-cv-00998—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2022
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2022
Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. In the 1950s, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont) began discharging vast quantities of C-8—a “forever” chemical that accumulates in the human body and the environment—into the Ohio River, landfills, and the air surrounding its plant in West Virginia, contaminating the communities’ water sources. By the 1960s, DuPont learned that C-8 is toxic to animals and, by the 1980s, that it is potentially a human carcinogen. Despite these and other warnings, DuPont’s discharges increased between 1984 and 2000. By the early 2000s, evidence confirmed that C-8 caused several diseases among the members of the communities drinking the contaminated water, which led to a class action lawsuit against DuPont. The parties undertook negotiations and ultimately entered into a unique settlement agreement in which DuPont promised to carry out treatment of the affected water and to fund a scientific process that would inform the class members and communities about the dangers of and harms from C-8 exposure. In service of that process, the class voted to make receipt of the cash award contingent on a full medical examination to test for and collect data on C-8 exposure. A panel of scientists then conducted an approximately seven-year epidemiological study of the blood samples and medical records of over 69,000 affected community members, during which litigation against DuPont was paused. The parties’ agreement limited the legal claims that could be brought against DuPont based on the study’s determination of which diseases prevalent in the communities were likely linked to C-8 exposure. The resulting cases were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

After two bellwether trials and a post-bellwether trial reached jury verdicts against DuPont, the parties settled the remaining cases. That did not end all the C-8 litigation, as more class members filed suit when they became sick or discovered the connection between their diseases and C-8, including this case brought by Travis and Julie Abbott. At the Abbotts’ trial, the district court applied collateral estoppel to specific issues that were unanimously resolved in the three prior jury trials, excluded certain evidence from the trial based on the initial settlement agreement, and rejected DuPont’s motion for a directed verdict on its statute-of-limitations defense. The jury found for the Abbotts. On appeal, DuPont challenges those three district court decisions. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in full.