February 2016 Federal Civil Practice Newsletter

In a lawsuit filed based on state and federal minimum-wage statutes, the defendant employer appealed from a district court order staying proceedings pending arbitration. At issue was whether the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate any claims during the employee on boarding process. The district court concluded that defendant did not establish that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate where plaintiff submitted an affidavit explaining that human-relations staff filled out the forms and did not explain them to the plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that it could not disturb the district court’s order where the only evidence was plaintiff’s affidavit in which he stated he did not agree to arbitrate so that the evidence in the record did not show that the district court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. (PRYOR and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against two local police officers who shared sexually explicit photos of them when they were underage with an “auxiliary police officer” who then retained those images for his own illegal use, alleging that the officers violated their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when they gave the auxiliary officer access to their images. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the section 1983 claims and plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs did not allege a viable substantive due process claim. (BRENNAN and RIPPLE, concurring)

In a case involving allegations of sex discrimination in education programs brought under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, the Seventh Circuit considered the limited question of whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed under a John Doe pseudonym or whether he must proceed using his real name. The district court order that plaintiff litigate under his real name but stayed its order pending appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff the use of a pseudonym and declined to broaden the existing legal standard to protect a party from risks that publicity would harm mental health. The Seventh Court further kept the appeal under advisement to allow plaintiff the opportunity to dismiss the appeal to avoid public disclosure of his name. (BRENNAN and ST. EVE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a section 1983 action against two deputies in the Wisconsin state court system alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by telling a jury during deliberations that it had to reach a unanimous verdict and that a hung jury was not a permissible outcome of deliberations. Defendants filed an answer asserting qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. The district court denied qualified immunity to the deputy who made the statement to the jury and provisionally denied qualified immunity to the other deputy. The second deputy then filed an appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that the district court’s action did not constitute a final adjudication of the qualified immunity issue and that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. (LEE, concurring and KIRSCH, dissenting)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for breach of contract after Capital One resigned as custodian of plaintiffs’ individual retirement account funds and transferred them to a successor custodian. Plaintiff alleged that Capital One acted imprudently in choosing a successor custodian that would pay less than the plaintiffs’ investments had previously earned. The district court granted judgment for defendant Capital One relying on a clause exculpating Capital One from liability for any loss caused by successor decisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but on different grounds, finding that Capital One did not break any promise it made to the plaintiffs. (SCUDDER and KIRSCH, concurring)