Case law

Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Company v. Baker

815 F.2d 422 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 3, 1987

Forsyth applies only when a party is immune from suit, not when the alleged immunity is only from liability. See Marrical v. The Detroit News, Inc., 805 F.2d 169, 172-73 (6th Cir.1986). … The issue here is transfer of liability, not entitlement not to be sued, and the transfer issue is clearly reviewable on appeal from a final judgment determining the merits of the case.

Mary R. CHRISNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC., Defendant-Appellant

645 F.2d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 19, 1981

successfully rebutted that case by establishing ■a business necessity defense. … The initial burden on a Title VII *1257 plaintiff is to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

Dever v. Mack

40 F. App'x 980 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 19, 2002

Comparatively, a rule established following a petitioner’s conviction “that breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government” is not considered to be clearly established for the purposes … Despite this change in the motivational requirement for a statement to qualify under OHIO R.

Petty v. Metro Govt Nashville

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 18, 2008

Petty’s First Two Claims - Delay in Rehiring and Failure to Hire at Proper Position: Congress has clearly prescribed the prerequisites Petty was required to satisfy to qualify for USERRA’s reemployment protection. … part of a returning veteran would suffice to establish cause for termination under § 4316.

Harris v. Lafler

553 F.3d 1028 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 30, 2009

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). … Brady is not limited to formal plea bargains, immunity deals or other notarized commitments.

Rudolph Combs v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

752 F.2d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 1985

There is ample medical evidence that he has silicosis and as the Administrative Law Judge found, he is clearly entitled to the statutory presumption to that effect. … The AU, relying on the first pulmonary function study, found that Combs qualified for the interim presumption under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203 (a).

Woods v. FacilitySource, LLC

640 F. App'x 478 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 3, 2016

Ability to communicate clearly with customer and vendors through conversation and writing. … Failure to Promote In order to establish a prima facie case of failure to promote, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) [he or] she is a member of a protected class; (2) [he or] she applied for and was qualified for a promotion

Daft v. Advest, Inc.

658 F.3d 583 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 23, 2011

Plaintiffs have clearly met this burden, as evidenced by the fact that the district court, after considering the question on the merits, determined that the AE Plan did qualify as an ERISA plan. … do not qualify as a ‘select group of highly compensated employees.’”).

Ronald Schmalfeldt v. Jason Roe

412 F. App'x 826 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 2011

Roe qualified immunity cannot be determined as a matter of law.” … There, the Court held that a defendant entitled to raise qualified immunity as a defense may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order denying qualified immunity if the pretrial record is “sufficient to show

Cardell Sanders, Jr. v. Genesee County, Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 14, 2023

Qualified immunity acts as an affirmative defense against Section 1983 claims if the government officials’ “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Regardless of whether McCallum’s pulling out her gun qualifies as a constitutional violation, “we can begin and end our analysis with the requirement that [Sanders] identify clearly established law.”

Allinder v. State of Ohio

808 F.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 8, 1987

Contrary to plaintiffs' contention that defendants have waived immunity by proceeding in these actions, a waiver of eleventh amendment immunity will be found only where indicated " 'by the most express language or by such … In Young, the Supreme Court held that state immunity did not shield a state official attempting to enforce an unconstitutional act.

N.L. ex rel. Ms. C. v. Knox County Schools

315 F.3d 688 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 2003

The School System’s Section 50k Procedures In order to establish a violation under section 504, a disabled individual must establish that he was subjected to prohibited discrimination, which means he was denied the opportunity … Muller does not contradict the holdings that a student who does not qualify under the IDEA also does not qualify under section 504.

Vanessa Enoch v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff's Office

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 11, 2020

the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … Its principles, therefore, were not clearly established law at the time of the arrests.

R. S. v. Lucas Cnty. Children Servs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2025

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless “(1) . . . the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … We make one final point on qualified immunity. We may address the two qualified- immunity prongs in either order. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).

Jeffrey Rasawehr v. Jeff Grey

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights[.]” Meals v. … Because at least one of the charges was supported by probable cause, the individual officers did not violate clearly established law and are entitled to qualified immunity.4 The district court properly granted summary

Sussex Engineering, Ltd. v. Montgomery

825 F.2d 1084 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 11, 1987

It is undisputed that there are currently insufficient “qualified” American automotive design engineers to satisfy the demands of the auto companies. … We cannot say that either standard is a more clearly correct interpretation of the statute than the other.

Coursey v. Commissioner of Social Security

843 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 14, 2016

attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys … In this case, Coursey established that the cost of living had, in fact, increased significantly.

Hibbler v. Regional Medical Center at Memphis

12 F. App'x 336 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

In order to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Hibbler must show that: (1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the Act, (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with … The Med was clearly entitled to summary judgment as to Hibbler’s FMLA claim. The record shows that Hibbler requested FMLA leave in September 1995, providing the necessary medical documentation in support.

Hedrick v. Western Rsrv

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 9, 2004

When a plaintiff seeks to establish a plaintiff must establish that: “1) he is an individual with a his case indirectly, however, the McDonnell Douglas burden- disability; 5 2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to … He must also establish that he is a “qualified accommodate a disabled individual. individual with a disability” by showing: (1) that he “satisfies the prerequisites for the position [he holds or Id.

Yakov Trakhtenberg v. County of Oakland

661 F. App'x 413 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 2016

These two prongs of the qualified immunity test may be addressed in any order. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). … Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that a clearly established right has been violated and that the official’s conduct caused that violation.