Search Results

The following opinion was issued on March 3 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Elizabeth Chitwood v. Ascension Health Alliance, d/b/a Ascension
No. 25-1933

Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Richard L. Young. Circuit Judge Taibleson writes that the court affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Ascension Health Alliance on the employee’s claims of interference with and retaliation for the exercise of rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Holds the employee could not establish FMLA interference because she attempted to retroactively report intermittent FMLA leave only after her employment had already been terminated and failed to comply with notice requirements requiring same-day reporting of intermittent leave and notification to her supervisor as soon as practicable. Further holds the retaliation claim fails because the record shows the employer terminated her for failing to return to work after her approved continuous FMLA leave expired, not because of her use of FMLA leave. Concludes that evidence of internal emails discussing concerns about possible FMLA abuse did not demonstrate pretext or discriminatory intent, as the employer consistently relied on the employee’s failure to return to work as the basis for termination.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.

This opinion was issued on March 2 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Crothersville Lighthouse Tabernacle Church, Incorporated v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.
No. 22-1082

Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Circuit Judge Sykes writes that the court affirms the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Church Mutual Insurance Company in this insurance dispute over replacement-cost benefits following a fire at the Lighthouse Tabernacle Church. Holds that Lighthouse Tabernacle waived its argument that it was relieved of its contractual obligation to repair or replace the damaged property as a condition to receiving additional replacement-cost payments by failing to raise that argument in response to the summary-judgment motion, and that forfeited arguments in civil cases rarely warrant plain-error review absent extraordinary circumstances. Concludes that because the church chose which arguments to present and did not raise its new legal theory on appeal in a timely manner — which was based on state appellate precedent — it cannot now obtain relief under civil plain-error doctrine, and that the judgment for Church Mutual must be affirmed. Brennan, C.J., and Hamilton, J., concur. Appellant’s attorney: Jason M. Smith. Appellee’s attorneys: Todd D. Small, John B. Drummy.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.