Case law

American Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Blackwell

479 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2006

Eleventh Amendment immunity Defendant next argues that plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Supreme Court has carved out an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for awards of prospective injunc-tive relief.

City of Dayton v. A.R. Environmental, Inc.

886 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2012

§ 1985(3) claim, Penland must demonstrate: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities … While he does reference all of these civil rights statutes, the discrimination counterclaims are not clearly set out in Penland's pro se pleadings.

White v. Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.

1 F. Supp. 3d 808 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2014

. *814 In order to prevail on a circumstantial evidence theory here, Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of race discrimination by proving that (1) he was African-American, (2) he was qualified, (3) he suffered an … Here Plaintiff has established he was a member of the protected class, that he was qualified for his position, and that he suffered an adverse employment action, termination.

Hicks

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 17, 2026

Hicks’s right of access to the December hearings because they were entitled to qualified immunity, (3) granted summary judgment to Mr. … The Sixth Circuit ultimately agreed with Defendants, concluding that the December 9 Ban’s unlawfulness was not clearly established and that the Board Members were entitled to qualified immunity on Claims 1 and 2.

Innerwood & Co. v. Privett (In re Privett)

557 B.R. 580 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 8, 2016

Does the filing of a bankruptcy petition operate to give a debtor immunity from the normal duty of any citizen to testify as a witness in a proceeding, whether criminal or civil? B. … Privett has not established that attending the deposition would impose any burden other than the ordinary time and expenses borne by all deponents in civil cases.

Turner v. Humana, Inc.

901 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 2, 2012

The ADA prohibits, inter alia, “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship … Here, as noted above, Plaintiffs have not identified which benefits they would otherwise have imminently qualified for had Mr. Turner not been fired.

O'Hara v. Mt. Vernon Board of Education

16 F. Supp. 2d 868 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 1998

This is clearly a claim of gender discrimination — the gender prong of sex discrimination — and is within the coverage of Title VII. … The particular evidence in that case showed that plaintiff had clearly established a prima facie case of retaliation and, although the employer had articulated legitimate reasons for its decision, there was ample evidence

Thompson v. Village of Phillipsburg, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2019

While Defendant Wysong summarily asserts qualified immunity against all of Plaintiff’s claims, he made substantive arguments regarding qualified immunity only against this claim. … Again, Plaintiff need only establish that Wysong acted recklessly to pierce his shield of statutory immunity.

Hartzell Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance

168 F. Supp. 2d 789 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2001

This allegation qualifies as a covered “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” … Therefore, Hartzell seeks coverage for damage to property that is clearly excluded by the “your product” exclusion in the Federal policy. (Doc. # 23 at 28).

Doe

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2026

Here, Defendants have filed an Answer (Doc. 35) to Plaintiffs’ Complaint that both admit or deny many of Plaintiffs’ allegations and asserts twenty-one affirmative defenses including negligence, qualified immunity, … Those communications clearly gave Mr.

Lyons v. Jacobs

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 28, 2023

Defendants last claim that, at any rate, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from liability because neither Plaintiff’s constitutional right not to be reassigned under these facts was clearly established. … Regarding the issue of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs contend that the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Gunasekera v.

Crawford v. National Lead Co.

784 F. Supp. 439 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 1989

Assuming arguendo that liability exists, defendants argue that they are immune from liability under the “government contractor defense.” … The production of uranium is clearly not a matter of common usage, as it is not “customarily carried on by the great mass of mankind or by many people in the community.”

Blassingame v. Trihealth Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2022

Blassingame’s fourth and final objection argues that qualified immunity should not apply in this proceeding. (ECF No. 56 at 6). Qualified immunity, however, was never mentioned in the Magistrate Judge’s Order. … Blassingame has a clearly identifiable disability which the city neglected to care for while Mr. Blassingame was in its custody on November 5, 2020.”

Sublett v. Edgewood Universal Cabling Systems, Inc.

194 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2002

Accordingly, summary judgment is clearly proper “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of … Under this method, the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: 1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he suffered adverse employment action; 3) he was qualified for the job lost or not gained

Stanford v. Northmont City Schools

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 14, 2021

Among multiple other arguments, they suggest, in a cursory manner, that qualified immunity protects Defendant Kaltenbach from any federal claims brought against him in his individual capacity. … This is true even where, as here, Defendants raise the possibility of a qualified immunity defense. Cf. Wesley v.

Terry v. Ms. Lt. Crawford

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 2024

Qualified Immunity Individual state actors performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to § 1983 claims unless the allegations … Here, because Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims fail on the merits, Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity regarding those claims. IV.

Sullivan v. Kelsey

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2022

Callahan—a case where the court found qualified immunity shielded the officers in-question— supports Defendants. See 555 U.S. at 244. Sullivan also fails to elaborate on why the motion is meritless. … For one or both of these reasons, Sullivan implies, they do not deserve qualified immunity. Sullivan relies on the assumed truth of the matter.

Baker v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2020

RECOMMENDATION The Social Security Administration (SSA) issues a Social Security number (SSN) upon application by a citizen, qualified alien, or parent on behalf of a qualified child. … A statute’s legislative history cannot supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory text; “the ‘unequivocal expression’ of elimination of sovereign immunity that we insist upon is an

Bailey Wooten v. Tara Sturts, et al

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2025

But see sub., § II (holding Jones is entitled to qualified immunity for actions distinct from the judicial process). … Second, the panel held that, to the extent the plaintiff-father’s claims implicated conduct distinct from the judicial process, the defendant-social worker was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity, because she “

Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc.

922 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 1, 1996

Thus, class members are currently required to qualify under the guidelines established by the defendants, which are considered by most to be far too restrictive. … In the meantime, the Trustees made a partial distribution from the Consultation Fund to qualified claimants of $3,000.00, as well as a partial payment of $500.00 to qualified spousal claimants from the $10 million Spousal