Monday, August 30, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Two Indiana opinions from 7th Circuit today
In US v. Howard (ND Ind., Springmann), a 13-page opinion, Judge Kanne writes:
Jennifer Howard was convicted of access device fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identify theft. She now appeals her convictions for wire fraud and mail fraud claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that she had the specific intent to defraud two of the victims identified in the superceding indictment. We affirm.In Runyon v. Applied Extrusion (SD Ind., McKinney), an 11-page opinion, Judge Wood writes:
Timothy L. Runyon worked for Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc. (“Extrusion”), for about a year, from February 2005 until February 2006. Extrusion is a manufacturer of plastic film. Runyon worked in one of its Terre Haute plants as a support operator in the finishing area. From the start, he had a turbulent relationship with his co-workers. After several heated disputes, Extrusion decided to fire him. Because it did not take similarly harsh action against a younger employee, Troy Corbett, even though Corbett had also misbehaved, Runyon concluded that the company had discriminated against him on the basis of his age and brought an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. The case went to trial, but at the close of Runyon’s case-in-chief, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law in Extrusion’s favor. We have looked at the record de novo, and, like the district court, we can find no evidence that Extrusion’s action was motivated by Runyon’s age. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2352 (2009). We therefore affirm.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 30, 2010 12:36 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions