|
DOROTHY HENSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 99-00888—George C. Smith, District Judge.
Argued: December 10, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 23, 2009
Before: KENNEDY, MARTIN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their federal takings claim against the City of Columbus. They alleged that the City unconstitutionally deprived them of their well-water by digging a trench to extend a sewer pipeline. The district court dismissed their claim as barred by the statute of limitations. Because it ripened around 1992—then beginning the two-year statute of limitations period—we affirm.
|
LYNETTE BARRETT; W. T. MELTON; TREVA NICKENS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, EUGENE JULIEN; LARRY SCHUSTER; DIANA SIMMONS, Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 06-00017—Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge.
Argued: December 3, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 23, 2009
Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; EDMUNDS, District Judge.
COLE, Circuit Judge. Lynette Barrett, W. T. Melton, and Treva Nickens (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), employees or former employees of Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”), appeal a grant of summary judgment in favor of Whirlpool in this racediscrimination and retaliation case. Plaintiffs allege that they were discriminated against on the basis of their friendships with and advocacy for certain African-American coworkers in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981”). The district court found that Plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite degree of association with their African- American co-workers to support their claim of discrimination based on such association and that, in any case, Plaintiffs were not subjected to a hostile work environment or retaliation. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiffs Barrett and Melton and against Nickens on her retaliation claim, REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Nickens on her hostile work environment claim, and REMAND for trial on that claim.