Latest news with #11thCircuit
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination
Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
So regulators can just make rules by gut instinct now?
If you think federal regulators care about data-driven, evidence-based policymaking, a case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will leave you scratching your head. The case involves a terrible Biden administration regulation driven by Big Labor. In defending this regulation, which mandates that crews on freight trains include at least two people, attorneys for the U.S. Department of Transportation leaned heavily not on data or evidence, but on 'common sense.' This, of course, is about a lot more than trains. It's a microcosm of a much larger issue. Emotion-based regulation is a destructive way to regulate the complex and dynamic U.S. economy — unless you happen to favor the lesser freedom and dynamism found on the European continent. In the case of this U.S. rule, the government admits that it has no actual evidence that two-person crews are safer than one-person crews. Instead, the agency has asked the court to defer to what it calls a 'common sense product of reasoned decision-making.' This language might sound like harmless bureaucratic boilerplate. It's anything but. It represents a dangerous precedent — one by which agencies can sidestep their legal responsibility to document actual market failures that necessitate regulation, to present cost-benefit analyses or even just to show substantive safety concerns. You might agree that two is better than one, but if 'common sense' is the new legal standard, then anything goes. What's next? Regulating package-delivery drones because 'it feels safer' to keep humans on some kind of joystick? Requiring every grocery store to have cashiers at every checkout lane — even if 90% of customers use self-checkout — because 'it feels more secure' to see someone behind the counter? Safety and security are obviously important. That's exactly why we should demand real evidence. The government's own data don't support the notion that mandating two-person crews would improve safety. My former colleague Patrick McLaughlin showed that there is no reliable, conclusive data to document that one-person crews have worse safety records than two-person crews. Many smaller U.S. railroads have long operated safely with single-person crews, as do the Amtrak trains that haul Washington's elite up and down the East Coast. We also have a wealth of data from Europe and other nations where single crew members operate. Then there are the issues of trade-offs. Importantly, requiring an additional crew member increases labor costs, which could divert funds away from critical areas such as track and equipment maintenance or safety-enhancing innovations (automation, accident-prevention systems, etc.). In fact, historically, safety improvements in rail have been driven more by infrastructure investment and innovation, not crew size. As it turns out, railroads have invested billions in automation and safety technology to reduce the risk of human error, which is the leading cause of rail accidents and can contribute to disasters like the 2023 wreck in East Palestine, Ohio, which continues to cast a pall over the industry. So why the push to keep such a rule now? The answer, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, is politics. This mandate has been a longstanding wish-list item for Big Labor. More crew members means more union dues. For elected officials, it means more campaign endorsements. For the rest of us, it means higher costs and more stuff moving over highways on trucks, which will increase traffic fatalities. The broader question raised by this case is whether federal rulemaking has abandoned the core principles of the U.S. system. Historically, agencies were expected to demonstrate a compelling need for regulation backed by real-world data. Now, it seems, the burden is being flipped: Unless the regulated party can prove the rule is unnecessary, the rule stands. In this European-style approach to regulation, which I am familiar with, the default control lies in the hands of bureaucrats who are simply presumed to know best. This is what the U.S. system was designed to avoid. This trend isn't just visible in rail policy. Across sectors, federal agencies are using vague justifications and broad interpretations of statutory authority to impose sweeping mandates — often with little concern for how they affect innovation, private investment or the broader economy. Courts, unless they push back firmly, risk becoming rubber stamps for regulatory overreach. If the 11th Circuit upholds this rule on the grounds of 'common sense,' the consequences could be far-reaching. It would effectively tell every agency not to worry about assembling an evidence-based record or conducting rigorous cost-benefit analyses. Just appeal to intuition and call it a day. That outcome would be one that offends genuine common sense. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
CBS News
4 days ago
- CBS News
Carnival Cruise Lines cleared in South Florida sexual assault case
While describing the incident as "nightmarish," a federal appeals court has ruled that Carnival Cruise Lines could not be held liable in the sexual assault of a teenage passenger. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by a U.S. district judge in the case filed in South Florida. Shipboard sexual assault of teen girl The victim, identified by the initials J.F., was on vacation with her parents. Three other teens, identified by the names Zion, Daniel and Jesus, offered to walk with her to check in with her parents late one night. On the way, they stopped at the room of one of the boys. The three boys allegedly sexually assaulted J.F. in the room. J.F. sued the cruise line, alleging that it had negligently failed to warn her of the danger and prevent the assault, according to Tuesday's opinion. Court sides with cruise line But the three-judge panel said Carnival "did not have actual or constructive notice of the risk that Zion, Daniel, or Jesus would commit sexual assault" and that evidence did not show that Carnival should have known the "particular type of risk" faced by J.F. "The sexual assault on J.F., as she describes it, was both tragic and depraved," Judge Kevin Newsom wrote in the opinion joined by Judges Robin Rosenbaum and Stanley Marcus. "But the question here is whether Carnival is responsible. We hold that it is not. Carnival — which oversees a vast fleet of ships, each the site of countless human interactions — couldn't have known about or foreseen the attack. Accordingly, it can't be liable."
CBS News
4 days ago
- General
- CBS News
Court refuses to halt judge's order requiring Florida agency to protect manatees in Indian River Lagoon
A divided federal appeals court Tuesday refused to halt a district judge's order that requires the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to take steps to protect manatees in the northern Indian River Lagoon, including temporarily preventing new septic tanks in the area. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected the department's request for a stay of an order issued last month by U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza. The stay, if granted, would have put Mendoza's order on hold while an underlying appeal plays out. Mendoza in April ruled the department violated the federal Endangered Species Act in the northern Indian River Lagoon, which is primarily in Brevard County. Getty Images Mendoza in April ruled the department violated the federal Endangered Species Act in the northern Indian River Lagoon, which is primarily in Brevard County. He followed with the May order, an injunction that included a moratorium on constructing and installing septic systems in a northern Indian River Lagoon watershed and requiring establishment of biomedical-assessment and supplemental-feeding programs for manatees in the area. The environmental group Bear Warriors United in 2022 filed the lawsuit against the department, arguing, in part, that wastewater discharges into the lagoon led to the demise of seagrass, a key food source for manatees, and resulted in deaths and other harm to the animals. The appeals-court panel decision Tuesday cited what are known as manatee "takings" because of water-quality problems. "The district court found that FDEP's (the department's) current wastewater regulations prolong manatee takings: it found a clear, definitive causal link between the FDEP's current wastewater regulations, the water pollution that is killing manatees' primary food source and is creating harmful algae blooms, and the length of time over which manatees will continue to be harmed. … We see no likely clear error in that finding," said the decision, shared by Judges Robin Rosenbaum and Jill Pryor. But Judge Britt Grant dissented, writing that Mendoza's injunction "is infirm in several respects and raises many serious questions about the scope of federal judicial power." "The district court below ordered the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to stop issuing sewage and disposal system permits near Florida's North Indian River Lagoon, and to establish from whole cloth (and in a matter of days) a program for assessing, feeding, and monitoring manatees and their habitat — a task that agency has neither the expertise nor the authority to complete," Grant wrote. A key part of Mendoza's injunction calls for the state to seek what is known as an "incidental take" permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That process would include the state developing a conservation plan, which could provide "permanent protection and management of habitat for the species," according to information about such permits on the federal agency's website. While the incidental-take permit request is pending, Mendoza ordered the department to not issue permits for constructing and installing septic systems in the area and required the other steps about a biomedical assessment and supplemental feeding. The septic-tank moratorium is slated to start July 17, while Mendoza ordered the assessment and feeding requirements to take effect Tuesday. FILE - A group of manatees are pictured in a canal where discharge from a nearby Florida Power & Light plant warms the water in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Dec. 28, 2010. Manatee deaths dropped in 2022 from a record high the year before, but Florida wildlife officials said Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2023, that chronic starvation caused by water pollution remains a major concern. Lynne Sladky / AP Bear Warriors United filed the lawsuit after Florida had a record 1,100 manatee deaths in 2021, with the largest number, 358, in Brevard County. Many deaths were linked to starvation. The state had 800 manatee deaths in 2022, before the number dropped to 555 in 2023 and 565 in 2024, according to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission data. As of Friday, 414 manatees deaths had been reported this year, including 85 in Brevard County, the most in any county. Manatees are classified by the federal government as a threatened species. In seeking the stay of Mendoza's injunction, the department raised a series of issues, including targeting the septic-tank moratorium. Septic tanks discharge nitrogen that can cause harmful algae blooms in waterways. "The indefinite moratorium on the construction of new septic systems further threatens to impede commercial and residential development in the state," the department's motion for a stay said. "Florida law specifically authorizes construction using 'nutrient-reducing onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems' or similar nitrogen-reducing 'wastewater treatment systems.' And the third-party property owners and developers affected by the court's decree have no ready means to challenge this moratorium, as they are not parties to this action (the lawsuit)." But Mendoza wrote in his April ruling that under the department's regulations, it would take at least a decade for conditions in the northern Indian River Lagoon, which also goes into Volusia County, to start to recover. "This is due to the previously and currently permitted discharge of legacy pollutants via wastewater into the north IRL (Indian River Lagoon)," Mendoza wrote. "These legacy pollutants caused the death of seagrasses — the manatee's natural forage — and the proliferation of harmful macroalgae. Legacy pollutants, as their name suggests, persist in the environment and cause harmful effects long after they have entered the system."
The Independent
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Florida can't enforce a new immigration law while court challenge continues, judges rule
Authorities can't enforce a new Florida law making it a misdemeanor for people in the U.S. illegally to enter the state while the law is being challenged in court, according to two new rulings. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Monday denied a request by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to put on hold her earlier injunction while it is being appealed. The injunction barred law enforcement from enforcing the immigration law, as Williams said it's likely the law will be found unconstitutional. Williams' decision followed an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling earlier this month denying a similar request from Uthmeier. The appellate judges said the case was far from being resolved. 'But we're mindful that the burden in this posture is for the Attorney General to make a 'strong showing' that he is likely to succeed on the merits. And we do not think he tips the balance in his favor,' the judges wrote, noting Uthmeier's 'seemingly defiant posture' regarding Williams' earlier order. After Williams issued her original order, Uthmeier sent a memo to state and local law enforcement officers telling them to refrain from enforcing the law, even though he disagreed with the injunction. But five days later, he sent a memo saying the judge was legally wrong and that he couldn't prevent local police officers and deputies from enforcing the law. Late last month, the district judge held a hearing in Miami to determine if Uthmeier should be held in contempt or sanctioned for not following her order. No decision has been made public yet. 'Again, he may well be right that the district court's order is impermissibly broad," the appellate judges said of Uthmeier. "But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.' ___ Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @
