Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., No. 09-1859, involved an action for hostile work environment sex discrimination and retaliation. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant in part, holding that defendant's proffer was sufficient to show a non-retaliatory motive for plaintiff's termination. However, the court vacated in part, on the ground that the district court, in evaluating the harassment claim, disregarded some evidence that clearly would be admissible at trial.
New York v. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Comm., No. 09-1594, concerned an action under section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenging the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) final management rule for the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery. The court of appeals reversed the district court's denial of the ASMFC's motion to dismiss, holding that the ASMFC was not a federal agency within the meaning of the APA because it was not an "authority of the [g]overnment of the United States."
Romano v. Kazacos, No. 08-6187, involved an action alleging that employees of Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. misrepresented that if plaintiffs were to retire early, their investment savings would be sufficient to support them through retirement. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion to remand and dismissing the action, holding that the district court was entitled to look beyond the four corners of plaintiffs' amended complaints because determining whether the cases were properly removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act was essentially a jurisdictional question.
In US v. Malki, No. 08-4417, the court of appeals vacated defendant's sentence for improper use of national defense information, holding that section 2M3.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines, rather than section 2M3.2, should have been used for the initial calculation of defendant's sentence.
In US v. Ramirez, No. 07-2912, the Second Circuit affirmed defendants' drug conspiracy convictions and sentences, on the grounds that 1) the district court improperly relied on "acquitted conduct" to establish drug quantity at sentencing, but the error was harmless; and 2) certain impeachment testimony - describing defendant's transport and delivery of cocaine - related to the charged conspiracy, and contradicted defendant's statement on direct examination that he had no contact with drugs during the relevant period.