Decisions In Age Discrimination Suit & Cleveland's Suit Against Lenders for Foreclosure Crisis - Civil Rights Law - U.S. Sixth Circuit
U.S. Sixth Circuit - The FindLaw 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Decisions In Age Discrimination Suit & Cleveland's Suit Against Lenders for Foreclosure Crisis

Spengler v. Worthington Cylinder, 08-3110, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's Rule 50(b) motion and jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, in plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio's anti-discrimination statute.  In afirming, the court held that the district court did not err in allowing plaintiff's case to proceed to trial as the language in plaintiff's EEOC charge sets forth sufficient facts to put the EEOC on notice of plaintiff's retaliation claim despite his failure to check the "Retaliation" box on the charge.  The court held that plaintiff's judicial complaint set forth facts establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA, and that the totality of the evidence in the record does not lead reasonable minds to but one conclusion in favor of the defendant on the retaliation claim.  Also, because plaintiff established the amount of his damages and defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was not entitled to those damages, damages were properly awarded.  Lastly, the court held that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the supervisor's conduct was willful and therefore, liquidated damages were warranted.

City of Cleveland v., Ameriquest Mortgage Sec., Inc., 09-3608, concerned City of Cleveland's public nuisance suit against twenty-two financial entities, claiming that defendants are responsible for a large portion of the subprime lending market in Cleveland and nationally that led to a foreclosure crisis in Cleveland.  In affirming district court's judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that the joint motion precludes Cleveland from now arguing that the district court should have remanded this suit, and the district court properly permitted this case to proceed in federal court.  The court further held that the connection between the alleged harm and the alleged misconduct it too indirect to warrant recovery.

Related Resources: