Case law

Gates v. United States Postal Service

502 F. App'x 485 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 2012

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation pursuant to the FMLA, Gates must establish that (1) he was engaged in an activity protected by the FMLA; (2) the employer knew that he was exercising his rights under the FMLA … This Court applies the Title VII burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Nancy Seaman v. Heidi Washington

506 F. App'x 349 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2012

A state court’s decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established federal law” if “the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides … Clearly established federal law is determined by the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state court decision. Id.

United States v. Phibbs

999 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1993

The district court, however, allowed such evidence to establish the beginning of Parks' dealings with Murr. … Its finding is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See United States v.

B. A. v. Tri-County Area Schs.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 14, 2025

This holding suggests that at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, a student’s right to free speech didn’t immunize them from punishment for vulgarity. … immunity.

Casnave v. LaVigne

169 F. App'x 435 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 9, 2006

In order to decide whether the state court violated clearly established federal law in deciding that Petitioner was not in custody for Miranda purposes, it is important to consider the relevant clearly established federal … The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in ruling that Alvarado was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Id.

Glover v. Johnson

138 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 8, 1998

Placing the blame on the defendants for this inability, the court concluded that the defendants "are clearly not in substantial compliance with the goals of apprenticeship programming as established in the Remedial Plan. … It further noted that while the defendants are not required to provide vocational, apprenticeship, or college programming at camp facilities, it has nonetheless "been the long-standing commitment of Defendants that qualified

Beery v. Associated Hygienic Products, LLC

243 F. App'x 129 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 8, 2007

Beery argues that the requirement of establishing a prima facie case, and the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting that follows, applies only in cases where the plaintiff seeks to establish discrimination through indirect … Where the plaintiff presents direct evidence that his disability was a factor in an adverse employment decision, his burdens are to establish that he was, or was regarded as, disabled, and that he is otherwise qualified either

Williams v. Skyview Min.

915 F.2d 1574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 9, 1990

Following a hearing, at which the parties stipulated to five years of qualifying coal mine employment, the ALJ found that Williams had failed to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis by any of the available methods provided … The ALJ properly considered the x-ray reports and credited those of the most qualified physicians, after discrediting those whose interpretations were equivocal. Warman v.

W.R. v. State of Ohio Health Department

651 F. App'x 514 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 10, 2016

Part C of the IDEA establishes minimum procedural safeguards that state programs are required to meet. See 20 U.S.C. § 1439. … To the extent this argument was preserved by Plaintiffs’ arguments in the district court that Grove was not entitled to qualified immunity and the Eleventh Amendment did not prohibit suit, it still fails because Plaintiffs

United States v. Jose Lopez-Rodriguez

652 F. App'x 406 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 17, 2016

Moreover, Lopez even “concedes that his Pennsylvania drug conviction and sentence qualified for this enhancement.” … Since this claim was not raised at the sentencing, Lopez bears the even greater burden of establishing that -4- Case No. 15-3810, United States v.

Dan Carman v. Janet Yellen

112 F.4th 386 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 9, 2024

Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. 2007) (fact that regulations had not been promulgated did not render claim unripe because “[r]egulations could not alter the [a]ct’s provisions, which clearly establish the healthcare … Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 313 (1997) (state-mandated drug testing necessary to be qualified to be political candidate was a search); City of Los Angeles v.

Doris E. Klein Janet Wagner v. Stop-N-Go

824 F.2d 453 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 16, 1987

The last part is clearly inadmissible. What she understood it to mean. She may testify what somebody said and that’s all she can do. # * * # * * THE COURT: What the man said was admissible. … One way a plaintiff can establish a pri-ma facie case of age discrimination is by demonstrating that: 1) he was a member of a protected class; 2) he was discharged; 3) he was qualified for the position; and 4) he was replaced

Lynn Martin, Secretary, Department of Labor v. W.E. Monks & Company and Edgar Edwards

1 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 3, 1993

However, testimony clearly shows that employees were never guaranteed that annual amount, barring absences of one day or more. … The tangential debate about whether temporal duration of the policy qualified as "inadvertent" is unnecessary. 26 Id at 40.

V & S Progalv, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner

168 F.3d 270 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 19, 1999

Such conduct by Respondent [ProGalv] was clearly violative of the Act. 78 J.A. at 10. … "The Board's determination [to order bargaining] is not immune from review ... [and] we must look at the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bargaining order." Indiana Cal-Pro, Inc. v.

Smith v. Bayer Corporation Long Term Disability Plan

275 F. App'x 495 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 24, 2008

Given the fact that Smith had been previously hospitalized due to his mental condition and was, at that time, completely unable to function on his own, his subsequent claim that he was “doing better” clearly does not justify … In other words, Smith’s education, training, and experience did qualify him to do stockhandler’s work, even though they qualify him to do higher-skilled work as well.

Jarrhod Williams v. DeWayne Burton

714 F. App'x 553 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 9, 2017

“A state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law where ‘the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides … “A state court’s decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if ‘the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court]’s decisions but unreasonably applies

Margaret McBryde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

958 F.2d 371 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 23, 1992

Freeman's evidence, as two qualified experts well-placed to observe Ms. McBryde's credibility, and Dr. … Palmer clearly does, in the view of Dr. Robert A. Sobel, the medical advisor to the Secretary. 14 Moreover, the Secretary relied heavily on evidence from Dr.

Omari Toyi v. Loretta Lynch

644 F. App'x 644 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 31, 2016

BIA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the IJ’s decision after finding that Toyi failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he timely applied for asylum and that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly … To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that, if removed to a designated country, his “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of a protected ground.

Marc D. Mezibov v. Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Ohio

411 F.3d 712 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2005

The district court noted that although Mezibov claims his activities are protected under the First Amendment, they are simply discrete functions of the practice of law, which is not a privilege or immunity protected by the … He is clearly on sound constitutional ground here....

United States v. Sherman M. Boyland

979 F.2d 851 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 1992

II. 8 Boyland's first claim of error, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, clearly is without merit. … judgments of conviction and sentencing. 1 This statute provides: Whoever, under color of any law, ... willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities