February 2016 Federal Civil Practice Newsletter

Plaintiffs, three employees at Illinois grade schools, filed a lawsuit after they were either put on unpaid leave or terminated by their employers for refusing to comply with state requirements that they either receive a Covid-19 vaccination or undergo weekly testing. Plaintiffs alleged that the schools’ actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscious Act. The district court dismissed the complaint and plaintiffs appealed and contested the dismissal of their Title VII claim, arguing for the first time that it also violated the Illinois Public Health Code. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiffs did not identify a religious objection to the schools’ requirement that they undergo weekly testing and that Title VII did not require the schools to contradict the Governor’s Executive Order. (EASTERBROOK and KIRSCH, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant after the subscription-based wireless communication system in their vehicle that was manufactured by the defendant became obsolete and defendant refused to replace the system at no cost to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged breach of warranty under federal and state law. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on the product’s terms of service and plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they did not agree to arbitrate their claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that defendant presented unrebutted evidence that subscribers received notice of the arbitration provision in the agreement prior to initiating their subscriptions. (ROVNER and SCUDDER, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission, seeking to compel the commission to enforce voter-ID laws more strictly and to alter the way that the commission manages voter registration lists. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court properly applied the tests for identifying intangible “injuries in fact” and organizational standing.

In an appeal in an anti-trust action, the Seventh Circuit considered whether the settlement negotiations of two parties produced a binding agreement in the absence of a formal, integrated, and signed writing that the parties contemplated. The Seventh Circuit explained that where material terms, defined as terms that either party deems essential, are left open to future negotiations then the initial agreement in principle cannot be binding as an executed contract. The appellate court then went on to conclude that the undisputed facts established that there were pending material terms at the time that the parties “accepted” the framework of a settlement agreement and, as a result, reversed the district court’s summary judgment order in which the trial court concluded that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement. (EASTERBROOK, concurring and MALDONADO, specially concurring)

In a case involving two judgment creditors competing for the same assets, an individual who obtained a money judgment against the defendant appealed from a district court order finding that the plaintiff’s secured interest was superior to the individual’s purported interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the individual waived his arguments by not raising them in the district court. (ST. EVE and KIRSCH, concurring)