« Courts - In Courts, Threats Have Become a Fact of Life | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals posts three today »

Monday, March 21, 2005

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts two today

Ryder Truck Renal v. NLRB (NLRB) [21 pp.]

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
FLAUM, Chief Judge. Petitioner Ryder Truck Rental (“Ryder”) seeks review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) holding that Ryder violated §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4) (“NLRA” or “Act”). The NLRB has filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order. Because the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we deny Ryder’s petition for review and enforce the Board’s order.

Cichon, Michael C. v. Exelon Generation Co (ND Ill.) [21 pp.]

Before BAUER, COFFEY and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
COFFEY, Circuit Judge. Michael Cichon was employed as a “Unit Supervisor” for Exelon Generation Company at its Byron, Illinois, nuclear power plant, until he was removed from the position because Exelon believed that he lacked the necessary leadership qualities. A few weeks later, Cichon applied for a different position with Exelon at their Byron plant, as a “Turbine Project Manager,” but was not hired because of his lack of leadership skills. Thereafter, Cichon filed suit against Exelon under § 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., alleging that Exelon had removed him from his Unit Supervisor position and refused to hire him for the Turbine Project Manager position in retaliation for his having filed a prior lawsuit against Exelon under the FLSA.1 The district court granted summary judgment to Exelon, finding Exelon had offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its decision to remove him as a Unit Supervisor and declining to hire him as a Turbine Project Manager and went on to conclude that Cichon had failed to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual. Cichon appeals, we affirm.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 21, 2005 02:40 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions