Three Sixth Circuit Decisions Before the Supreme Court
A new U.S. Supreme Court term has started with just three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decisions on the court's docket. Gone are the days when the Sixth Circuit challenged the Ninth as the most reversed federal appellate court.
November 11, 2019 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A new U.S. Supreme Court term has started with just three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decisions on the court's docket. Gone are the days when the Sixth Circuit challenged the Ninth as the most reversed federal appellate court. Last term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in seven Sixth Circuit cases and reversed the Sixth Circuit just three times, a very respectable 57% affirmance rate—never mind the Sixth Circuit was affirmed just once in the preceding two terms.
Of the troika of Sixth Circuit cases before the high court this term, the most widely known is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. There, the Sixth Circuit held that discrimination based on transgender status is necessarily discrimination motivated by sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case arose after an employer terminated a transgendered employee who, although identified as male when hired, began to present as a woman. The employee refused to comply with the dress code for male employees and the employer cited the dress code, along with the employer's religious beliefs, as a justification for ending the employment. The Sixth Circuit decided the employee was fired due to the employee's failure to conform to the sex stereotypes of a biological male in violation of Title VII. The court reasoned that it is impossible to terminate an employee based on that person's transgender status without being motivated by the employee's sex.
The Sixth Circuit's decision created a circuit split with decisions from the Eighth and Tenth circuits. The Supreme Court accepted the case and heard argument on the same day as arguments about whether employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful under Title VII.
Although the Supreme Court's commitment to textualism in statutory cases is undiminished, this case tests of the continued vitality of the original-meaning approach to statutory interpretation. The employer argued before the Supreme Court that the term "sex" in Title VII cannot encompass gender identity because no one would have understood "sex" to have that meaning in 1964. In contrast, the employee argued that the Sixth Circuit correctly reasoned that employment decisions motivated by transgender status necessarily are because of sex—at the very least as a matter of sex stereotyping.
After oral argument, considerable attention was focused on Justice Neil Gorsuch's comments that the text of Title VII was "close," but including gender identity within sex under Title VII would cause "massive social upheaval." The court appears to be closely divided—no surprise to court watchers—with Gorsuch appearing to be the possible swing vote—which is a surprise.
Neither of the other Sixth Circuit cases before the Supreme Court has the same draw and public interest. The first involves when a bankruptcy court's decision to lift the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay is appealable.
Filing for bankruptcy usually halts or stays all other cases against the bankrupt party. Not infrequently, the parties in the other cases ask the bankruptcy court to lift the stay to allow the other lawsuits to proceed. In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, the Sixth Circuit addressed when a party must file an appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to lift the stay. The Sixth Circuit determined an order denying relief from an automatic stay terminates a discrete proceeding—a contested case. It is therefore final and immediately appealable. According to the Sixth Circuit, the failure to take a timely appeal deprives the appellate courts of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's decision not to lift the stay.
Seven other federal circuit courts of appeals have reached the same conclusion, but the First and the Third circuits have adopted a different rule. In those circuits, courts must consider the nature of the dispute and whether the effect of the order denying the lift of stay really resolves the contested case. The rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit and most of the other circuits provides a bright-line rule for bankruptcy and appellate practitioners, while the rule adopted by the First and Third circuits is more amorphous and poses a potential trap for the unwary litigant.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the Sixth Circuit's decision to resolve the established circuit split. The court will hear argument Nov. 13.
The final Sixth Circuit decision before the Supreme Court addresses two questions arising under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Under the Hague Convention, the country of a child's habitual residence frequently determines whether a child's removal or retention by one parent is wrongful. In Monasky v. Taglieri, the district court determined a child who was born in Italy to an American mother and an Italian father was habitually a resident in Italy even though the mother fled Italy with the child to escape domestic abuse when the child was only a few months old.
The Sixth Circuit ruled it could only review the district court's decision for clear error. The Sixth Circuit then reasoned that even though the child could not have acclimatized to Italy because she was so young, the lack of any agreement between the parents as to where the child would live did not mean that Italy was not the child's habitual residence. The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling even though it meant the custody of the child would be determined in the alleged domestic abuser's home country.
The standard for reviewing habitual residence determinations under the Hague Convention has been the subject of conflicting decisions among the federal circuits and by international courts. In particular, there has been significant debate about the importance of the parents' shared intent about where the child should live in deciding where a child is habitually resident. The Sixth Circuit is the only circuit court that plainly states parents' subjective intent plays no role in the decision, but the importance of shared parental intent has been lessening in decisions from courts in various international tribunals. The Supreme Court will hear argument in Monasky on Dec. 11.
Matthew T. Nelson is a partner and chair of the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Warner Norcross + Judd resident in the firm's Grand Rapids, Michigan office.
Jarrod Trombley, an associate with the firm in the Grand Rapids, Michigan office, focuses his practice on litigation, dispute resolution and employment litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
Trying a Case for Abu Ghraib Detainees Two Decades After Abuse
Should It Be Left to the Plaintiffs Bar to Enforce Judicial Privacy Laws?
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-70
- 2Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Standing for Plaintiffs in Copyright Suit Over AI Training of ChatGPT
- 3LA Judge Anne Hwang Confirmed to the Federal Bench
- 4NY Court Leaders Ask for 10% Judiciary Budget Increase
- 5ClaimClam Wanted to Boost Class Action Claims Rates. But Judges and Attorneys Fought Back
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250