Wednesday, March 09, 2016
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides two Indiana cases today
In William Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Incorp (ND Ind., Moody), a 16-page opinion, Judge Shah (Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation) writes:
William Bridge was fired from his job at New Holland Logansport in March 2011, when he was 61 years old. Bridge sued Logansport under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., which prohibits employers from discharging individuals because of their age, id. § 623(a)(1). The statute defines “employer” as someone who has twenty or more employees for each working day, in each of twenty or more calendar weeks, in the calendar year of (or in the year preceding) the discriminatory act. Id. § 630(b). After concluding that New Holland Logansport did not have twenty or more employees, the district court granted Logansport’s motion for summary judgment. * * *In USA v. Vernado Malone (ND Ind., DeGuilio), a 9-page opinion, Judge Kanne writes:
Bridge did not marshal evidence from which a jury could find that New Holland Logansport was an “employer” under the ADEA. Summary judgment in favor of the defendant was appropriate, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Appellant Vernado Malone pled guilty to mail fraud and aggravated identity theft pursuant to a written plea agreement. In the factual basis of his plea agreement, he admitted that he “committed numerous instances of access device fraud” and “misused the means of identification of employees of several companies,” specifically identifying three companies and one individual he defrauded. At sentencing, the government presented evidence that there were twenty‐eight victims of Malone’s scheme.
Despite having waived his right to appeal, Malone argues that the government materially breached the plea agreement by presenting evidence of twenty‐eight victims when only four were referred to by name in the agreement. Because the plea agreement made clear that the named victims were either an “example” or just “[o]ne of” the companies he defrauded, the government did not commit a material breach by introducing evidence that there were more victims than those specifically named. Accordingly, we enforce the appellate waiver and dismiss this appeal. * * *
Because the factual basis of the plea agreement only listed a victim by name to serve as an “example” of Malone’s “numerous instances of access device fraud” and there was no language of stipulation purporting to limit the number of victims, the government did not breach the plea agreement by presenting evidence at sentencing that there were twentyeight victims of Malone’s scheme.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 9, 2016 05:50 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions