1 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv DMM ROBERT LIEBMAN, versus METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d.b.a. MetLife, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (December 18, 2015) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and THAPAR, * District Judge. * Honorable Amul R. Thapar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
2 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 2 of 13 PER CURIAM: Robert Liebman began working for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ( MetLife ) as a sales representative in When MetLife fired him in 2013, he brought this action, making an age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( ADEA ), 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1), as well as a retirement benefits interference claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( ERISA ), 29 U.S.C Now before us on appeal, Liebman contests the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of MetLife. He argues that the district court erred in holding that he failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA because the person who replaced him at MetLife was also over the age of forty. Liebman also argues that the district court erred in finding that he was not qualified for his position, which is a fact necessary to make a prima facie case under both the ADEA and ERISA. Finally, Liebman asserts that in granting MetLife s motion for summary judgment, the district court improperly weighed evidence and failed to draw all inferences in the light most favorable to him. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we reverse and remand. I. Over the years since Liebman began working for MetLife in 1985, he held a number of positions in the company. By 2003, he was the Managing Director of 2
3 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 3 of 13 MetLife s West Palm Beach and Boca Raton offices. In 2007, Liebman hired Neil Weiss as an Agency Sales Director to work directly for him. Half of Liebman s sales representatives reported to him, and the other half reported to Weiss. In 2008, Liebman began reporting to Larry Adkins. Adkins gave Liebman poor evaluations, told him his office was having a bad year, and placed him on a performance plan. In his sworn declaration, Liebman says that at the time of this 2008 reassignment, he already knew that Adkins was jealous of his pension plan. According to Liebman, on at least four or five occasions between 2003 and 2008, Adkins made begrudging remarks about Liebman s benefits package. Liebman s package was more generous than Adkins s even though Adkins held a higher position in the company. Then in 2009 MetLife restructured, and Liebman began reporting to Gil Cohen instead of Adkins. After this restructuring, Liebman had fewer responsibilities, but his salary remained the same. Weiss also continued to work under Liebman. In 2011, Cohen contracted with Gene Foxen, an external consultant, to evaluate how MetLife could improve sales. Although Foxen acknowledged that Liebman s office had done quite well, he suspect[ed] much of its overall success [came] from the efforts of Neil Weiss. Foxen arrived at this suspicion without ever having met with Weiss individually. Foxen also described Liebman as egocentric. 3
4 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 4 of 13 In 2012, MetLife again restructured and cut resources. These cuts, combined with a significant drop in sales by one of Liebman s top sales agents, led to a poor sales year for Liebman. Some time during 2012, Adkins became the Regional Vice President of MetLife and Cohen s immediate supervisor. Also during 2012, Liebman began hearing complaints about his performance. In a meeting with Cohen and another manager, Liebman was informed of reports from unnamed sources that he was not as available as [he] need[ed] to be... not working, or just not around. Liebman s sworn declaration states that, during the second quarter of 2012, Adkins again made comments about Liebman s pension plan, this time at a meeting in front of 150 to 200 employees. In October 2012, Liebman s pay was cut by 10% a week. In December 2012, Cohen told Liebman that the company was eliminating his position. Cohen acknowledged in his sworn declaration that this decision was based in part on Adkins s strong suggestion. Cohen gave a number of reasons for the decision: (1) MetLife needed to reduce salary expenses and Liebman was one of the highest paid Managing Sales Directors in the company; (2) some of Liebman s responsibilities were duplicative of Weiss s, who cost less and had a better performance evaluation in 2012 than Liebman; (3) Liebman was detached and ineffective despite warnings about needing to be engaged; and (4) Foxen had 4
5 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 5 of 13 suggested that Weiss was the driving force behind the West Palm Beach office s success. Liebman was given three weeks to interview for another position at MetLife. He did not get that position and was terminated on January 31, At the time of Liebman s termination, he was 49 years old, Cohen was 45, Adkins was 44, and Weiss was 42. Liebman alleges that, as a result of being terminated before age 55, he lost approximately $90,000 per year in pension benefits starting at age 60. He also alleges that his retiree medical insurance benefits would have accrued at age 55, though MetLife counters that it has discretion to change retiree health insurance. In May 2013, Liebman filed suit against MetLife, claiming that his discharge violated the ADEA and ERISA. The parties conducted discovery, then MetLife moved for summary judgment on both claims. The district court found that Liebman failed to establish a prima facie case under both the ADEA and ERISA. Specifically, the district court held that Liebman did not state a proper ADEA claim because his replacement, Weiss, was 42 years old and also a member of the protected class. The district court further found that Liebman failed to show he was qualified for his position. The district court also granted summary judgment against Liebman on his ERISA claim based on its holding that Liebman did not 5
6 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 6 of 13 show he was qualified for his position and presented only his own self-serving statements about his qualifications for the job. Liebman timely appealed. II. We review de novo a district court s grant of summary judgment, resolving all reasonable factual disputes in favor of the non-moving party. Mora v. Jackson Mem l Found., Inc., 597 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Summary judgment is proper only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Benson v. Tocco, Inc., 113 F.3d 1203, 1207 (11th Cir. 1997). A. The ADEA prohibits employers from firing employees who are forty years or older because of their age. 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1); Sims v. MVM, Inc., 704 F.3d 1327, (11th Cir. 2013). To assert an action under the ADEA, an employee must establish that his age was the but-for cause of the adverse employment action. Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176, 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2350 (2009). This showing can be made through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Mora, 597 F.3d at When an ADEA claim (like the one before us) is based on circumstantial evidence, we apply the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct (1973). See Sims, 704 F.3d at
7 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 7 of 13 Under McDonnell Douglas, an employee must first establish a prima facie case, which creates a presumption of unlawful discrimination. To make a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employee must show: (1) he was a member of the protected group between the age of forty and seventy; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) a substantially younger person filled the position from which he was discharged; and (4) he was qualified to do the job from which he was discharged. Kragor v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2012). Once an employee has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption of discrimination with evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. If the employer proffers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer s reason is a pretext. Id. The district court correctly found that Liebman satisfied the first two prongs of this test because he was a member of the protected class and he was fired. However, the district court erred when it found that Liebman was not replaced by a substantially younger person and that he could not prove he was qualified to do the job from which he had been fired. The district court determined that Liebman was not replaced by someone substantially younger because Weiss, his replacement, was also over the age of forty and therefore also a member of the ADEA s protected class. But quite to the 7
8 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 8 of 13 contrary, the Supreme Court told us in O Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 116 S. Ct (1996), that [t]he fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is... irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age. Id. at 312, 116 S. Ct [T]here can be no greater inference of age discrimination (as opposed to 40 or over discrimination) when a 40-year-old is replaced by a 39-year-old than when a 56-year-old is replaced by a 40-year-old. Id. We therefore know that the fact than an ADEA plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case. Id.; see also Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 583 (11th Cir. 1989) ( [W]e have declined to hold that a plaintiff s inability to show that he was replaced by someone under forty is an absolute bar to the establishment of a prima facie case. ). The proper inquiry under McDonnell Douglas is whether Weiss was substantially younger than Liebman. See O Connor, 517 U.S. at 313, 116 S. Ct. at Weiss is seven years younger than Liebman, and this difference qualifies as substantially younger. See Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1360 (11th Cir. 1999) (five years is enough); Carter v. DecisionOne Corp., 122 F.3d 997, 1003 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (three years is enough); Carter, 870 F.2d at 583 (four years is enough). Viewing the facts in the light most 8
9 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 9 of 13 favorable to Liebman, the district court erred in finding that the third prong of the McDonnell Douglas test was not met. We must also address the district court s finding that Liebman was not qualified for the job from which he was discharged, because in 2012 he was not performing as expected. In assessing a plaintiff s qualification for a position, we examine his skills and background. Damon, 196 F.3d at However, if a plaintiff has enjoyed a long tenure at a certain position, we can infer that he or she is qualified to hold that particular position. Id. Liebman worked for MetLife for 27 years. Although MetLife is correct that Liebman held the specific title of Managing Sales Director for only three years before he was fired, the record demonstrates that he performed substantially similar duties for the preceding six years as Managing Director. Liebman had therefore been in virtually the same position for a total of nine years before his termination. Nine years in the same position, and nearly three decades at the company, is long enough to support the inference that he was qualified for his job. Beyond that (and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Liebman), there is significant evidence that he was qualified for his position. For example, he received many leadership awards during his 27 years at MetLife. In 2009, 2010, and 2011, his was the top branch for MetLife s Cypress Financial Group. The district court characterized Liebman s reliance on this evidence as presenting self- 9
10 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 10 of 13 serving statements that he was a wonderful employee. But even if a party s statements are self-serving,... that alone does not permit us to disregard them at the summary judgment stage. Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2013); see also Price v. Time, Inc., 416 F.3d 1327, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005) ( Courts routinely and properly deny summary judgment on the basis of a party s sworn testimony even though it is self-serving. ). The district court erred in disregarding Liebman s sworn statements and in finding that Liebman failed to establish that he was qualified for the position. Finally, the justifications offered by MetLife for Liebman s termination namely that the company needed to reduce its budget for salaries and that many of Liebman s responsibilities were duplicative of Weiss s were not a proper basis for rejecting Liebman s prima facie showing. Employer justifications become relevant only after the plaintiff has made his prima facie case. See Kragor, 702 F.3d at When it found that Liebman was not qualified for his position based on MetLife s proffered reasons for firing him, the district court conflated the burden shifting stages of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Liebman has established a prima facie ADEA case. We therefore vacate the district court s order granting summary judgment on Liebman s ADEA claim and remand for consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate under the McDonnell Douglas framework. 10
11 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 11 of 13 B. We turn next to the district court s grant of summary judgment on Liebman s ERISA claim. ERISA makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge... a [benefit plan] participant... for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled. 29 U.S.C. 1140; see also Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 990 F.2d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 1993). As with an ADEA claim, a plaintiff can establish an ERISA claim by either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Clark, 990 F.2d at To establish a prima facie ERISA case, an employee must show that he: (1) was entitled to ERISA protection; (2) was qualified for his position; and (3) was discharged under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. Id. Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to establish the employer s reason was pretext. Id. Relying on its discussion of Liebman s ADEA claim, the district court held that Liebman was not qualified for his position at MetLife. According to the district court, then, Liebman s ERISA claim failed for lack of a prima facie case. But for the reasons discussed in connection with Liebman s ADEA case, we believe the district court erred here as well. 11
12 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 12 of 13 The district court did not address whether Liebman was discharged under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. However, in his sworn declaration, Liebman pointed to four or five occasions between 2003 and 2008 when Adkins suggested he was jealous of Liebman s pension plan. Liebman also attested that Adkins publicly singled him out about his pension in front of 150 to 200 employees in Adkins s comment on Liebman s pension plan in front of a large group is corroborated by Samir Abdullah, a former MetLife sales representative. These statements offer support for Liebman s claim that he was discharged under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. MetLife argues here, as it did before the district court, that any statements in Liebman s declaration about Adkins s jealous comments should be disregarded because they directly contradict his deposition testimony. It is of course true that [w]hen a party has given clear answers to unambiguous questions which negate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact [for summary judgment], that party cannot thereafter create such an issue with an affidavit that merely contradicts, without explanation, previously given clear testimony. Van T. Junkins & Assoc., Inc. v. U.S. Indust., Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 657 (11th Cir. 1984). MetLife also moved to strike Abdullah s sworn declaration because Abdullah was not identified as a witness by the witness disclosure deadline. 12
13 Case: Date Filed: 12/18/2015 Page: 13 of 13 After granting summary judgment to MetLife, the district court dismissed all pending motions as moot. As a result, it never ruled on whether Liebman s statements in his sworn declaration contradicted his deposition. Neither did it rule on MetLife s motion to strike the Abdullah declaration. However the declarations offered by Liebman and Abdullah could create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether Leibman was discharged under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. For that reason, the district court erred by granting judgment in favor of MetLife before deciding on the admissibility of the Liebman and Abdullah declarations. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment on Liebman s ERISA claim and remand to the district court. Before considering whether Liebman can establish a prima facie case under ERISA, the district court should rule on the admissibility of Liebman s statements and Adbullah s declaration. III. We vacate the grant of summary judgment on Liebman s ADEA and ERISA claims and remand for the district court s consideration consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED. 13
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0927n.06 No. 13-5221 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Gaylus Bailey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, Real Time Staffing Services, Inc., dba Select
Case 1:08-cv-00284-CB-M Document 29 Filed 06/15/09 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMSON, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CIVIL
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
ILIANA RODRIGUEZ, Case: 11-15206 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15206 D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-23114-JLK versus UNIVERSITY OF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVELYN THOMAS v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-5372 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Kauffman, J. April 18, 2008
Case: 15-10629 Date Filed: 08/06/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10629 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00868-CSC W.L.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 8:03CV165 Plaintiff, v. WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY and/or OMAHA WOODMEN LIFE INSURANCE
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY V. NIGRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant-Appellee. No. 12-57262 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01541- MMA-JMA ORDER
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 9, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SHARON K. BOESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORT
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 10a0063n.06 No. 09-1145 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SUSAN CUTCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KMART CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation,
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0429n.06 No. 12-4217 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CRYSTAL SARVAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. URBAN RETAIL PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
Case: 11-55379 06/ 26/ 2012 ID: 8228066 DktEntry: 25-1 Page: 1 of 5 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-14166 Date Filed: 03/17/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] FRANK P. MIELE, REGINALD CARNICK, II, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-14166 Non-Argument Calendar
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0059n.06 No. 15-5011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ELLEY A. LOPREATO, APRN, RN; SUSAN M. TAYLOR, RN v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SELECT
Case 1:11-cv-01397-CAP Document 69 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 10 TAMMY DRUMMONDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 1:11-CV-1397-CAP
Case: 10-10122 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10122 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00667-RDP PRINCIPAL
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 21, 2013 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT QUINCEY GERALD KEELER, a/k/a Jerry, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Lillie M. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. The HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and Illinois State University, Respondents. No. 4-92-0546. Argued May 24, 1993. Decided June 30,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT VIVIAN R. HARRIS, : Plaintiff, : : 3:08-cv-909 (CFD) v. : : LONG HILL TREE AND LAWN CARE : SERVICE, INC., : Defendant. : RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v.
Case: 11-15136 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 1 of 11 ARTHUR SMITH, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nos. 11-15136 & 11-15801 D.C. Docket Nos. 9:08-cv-80820-DTKH, 9:08-cv-81185-DTKH
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Case: 14-10001 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10001 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61759-WPD SOUTH FLORIDA
8:09-cv-00341-LSC-FG3 Doc # 276 Filed: 07/19/13 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID # 3979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL S. ARGENYI, Plaintiff, v. CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
SECOND DIVISION April 17, 2007 No. 1-06-2447 IN THE MATTER OF: ) Appeal from an order C.R.M., ) of the Chief Legal ) Counsel of the Petitioner-Appellant, ) Illinois Department ) of Human Rights. v. ) )
Case 2:04-cv-00026-JES-DNF Document 471 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MARCO ISLAND CABLE, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff,
Wendy Musell Stewart & Musell, LLP In 2011, the federal government is the Nation's largest employer with about 2.0 million civilian employees. 600,000 employees approximately in the US Postal Service Laws
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-23-2008 Motise v. Parrish Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1881 Follow this and additional
No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial
CCCaaassseee::: 111444- - -111222000000222 DDDaaattteee FFFiiillleeeddd::: 000888///111777///222000111555 PPPaaagggeee::: 111 ooofff 777 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
Case 1:07-cv-00514-GJQ Document 58 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WALTER E. HARRIS v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-CV-514 HON.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0541n.06 Filed: August 1, 2006 No. 05-4124 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEMPSEY C. WOOD, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE MID-AMERICA
Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care of Delaware, LLC Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION RODNEY JONES, vs. Plaintiff, Case No.: 8:15-cv-702-T-24EAJ GULF COAST HEALTH
Case 1:08-cv-06957 Document 45 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ROBERT F. CAVOTO, ) ) Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 150059-U Order filed
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-0222 Karyn Larson Smith, Appellant, vs. Argosy
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30472 JOSEPH P. FUZY, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15-1328 NEAL D. SECREASE, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, THE WESTERN & SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-60902 Summary Calendar LONNA ANTHONY, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS FRANCES DeGRATE; ET AL, Defendants, ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY-SOUTHWEST, Defendant-Appellee.
2:09-cv-14271-LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-14271 HON.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1096 Jeanne Dovenmuehler, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. St. Cloud Hospital,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSEMARY ADAMS AND RICHARD MURAO, Plaintiffs, v. B&B SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-4573 Memorandum
Case: 12-13210 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13210 D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
Case: 14-10913 Date Filed: 12/15/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10913 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01066-MSS-TBM GEICO GENERAL
Case 1:12-cv-11605-RWZ Document 71 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11605-RWZ ELIZABETH TYREE v. ANTHONY FOXX, 1 Secretary, U.S. Department
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15610 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-00807-GKS-GJK [DO NOT PUBLISH] FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CRISTOBAL COLON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
Case 2:08-cv-02427-EFM Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MAX SEIFERT, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 08-2427-EFM KANSAS CITY, KANSAS COMMUNITY
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: CASE NO. JAMES MICHAEL WATSON 03-13355 DEBTOR CHAPTER 7 SECURITY RESOURCES, L.L.C. ADV. NO and INTERFACE SECURITY SYSTEMS, L.L.C. 04-1005
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 13-1603 THE ESTATE OF JOHN R.H. THOURON, CHARLES H. NORRIS, EXECUTOR v. Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Appeal from the United
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 03-1882 NOT PRECEDENTIAL PATTY JO DORSEY, Executors of the Estate of Philip W. Dorsey III; DANIEL H. BOOKER; REDMOND JOHNSON, JR.; PHILIP S.
Case: 14-13724 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-13724 D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-81259-RNS GLENAAN ROBBINS, individually
Case: 11-13737 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13737 [DO NOT PUBLISH] D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG In
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11100 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00018-JRH-BKE
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13 2018 PATRICIA BANKS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION and FLORENCE GONZALES, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the
Case: 13-15067 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 Page: 1 of 8 DOROTHY SNOW, versus IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15067 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00813-MEF-TFM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC SMITH, a/k/a Capone, a/k/a Pone, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from
Case :0-cv-000-RCJ-PAL Document Filed 0//0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 0 STEVEN FERGUSON, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS GOLF CLUB, LLC SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS/CHRISTOPHER
1995 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-28-1995 In Re: Unisys Corp (Mem Op) Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 94-1912 Follow this and additional works
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT F I L E D June 20, 2008 No. 07-60893 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk EDWARD SENU-OKE,
Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
CHARGE 2.21 Page 1 of 13 2.21 THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ( NJLAD ) (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq.) INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE COURT (Approved 5/03) The model employment discrimination charges that
Washington v. Vericrest Financial, Inc. et al Doc. 1 1 1 1 0 1 TIFFANI WASHINGTON, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, VERICREST FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation
Case 1:10-cv-00166-PTS Document 34 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JANET G. ROMERO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:10CV166 ) STATE OF
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. K MART CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, State of Illinois and Vickie Crider, Defendants- Appellants. No. 4-84-0236. Dec. 28, 1984.
Case 2:11-cv-02714-JAR Document 247 Filed 03/28/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) BOARDWALK APARTMENTS, L.C., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-2714-JAR-KMH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
2014 IL App (1st) 131149-U SECOND DIVISION September 16, 2014 No. 1-13-1149 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-10136 Non-Argument Calendar FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 13, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA HARVEY HALEY APPELLANT v. ANNA JURGENSON, AGELESS REMEDIES FRANCHISING, LLC, AGELESS REMEDIES MEDICAL SKINCARE AND APOTHECARY AND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
IN THE THE STATE MARLEN REZA, Appellant, vs. STACEY HUDSON, M.D., Respondent. No. 54140 FILED MAY 17 2011 TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK ORDER REVERSAL AND REMANDBY- -- DEPUTY CLER This is an appeal from a district
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit May 15, 2008 Barbara A. Schermerhorn Clerk IN RE CHRISTOPHER
Case 8:13-cv-01731-VMC-TBM Document 36 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 134 JOHN and JOANNA ROBERTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-1731-T-33TBM
Case 310-cv-00079-WWE Document 109 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT FRITZ ST. ANGE v. CIV. NO. 310CV79(WWE) ASML, INC. AND RICK THAYER RULING ON DEFENDANTS