CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

SAMMY LEE TERRELL,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellant.


No. 07-2546

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-72353—Denise Page Hood, District Judge.
Argued: January 16, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 26, 2009
Before: KENNEDY, COLE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. This case presents the federal courts of appeals with an issue of first impression. Can the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) use videoconferencing to conduct parole determination proceedings? Habeas petitioner Sammy Terrell challenged this practice as a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4208(e) and his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, and he prevailed in the district court on due process grounds. We conclude that the statute requires parole determination proceedings to be held in person, and so for the following reasons, affirm the judgment of the district court.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

SHARON TURNBULL SYBRANDT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 08-5598

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 07-00031—William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: March 10, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 26, 2009
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; GILMAN and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Sharon Turnbull Sybrandt sued her former employer, Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., alleging that it had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) by terminating her employment because of her sex. Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Sybrandt based upon her violation of a company policy that prohibited the use of an employee’s password-protected user-identification code to conduct personal transactions involving Home Depot merchandise. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Home Depot.