A Sixth Circuit panel unanimously held last week in Williams v. City of Cleveland that pretrial detainees forced to “undress in the presence of other detainees and to have their naked genitals sprayed with delousing solution” stated a viable claim under § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment.
There’s a lot to like about practicing in the Fourth Circuit–the case managers are excellent, the local rules and IOPs are intuitive, and the staff is remarkably responsive.
Sometimes it’s hard to know who’s in a class without substantial individualized inquiries. Can a court certify a class of persons with allegedly similar injuries by pigeonholing the question of class membership as a question of damages to be determined later?
A powerful weapon in any policyholder’s arsenal is the potential to argue that an insurer waived its right to rescind a policy or deny coverage. Successfully arguing waiver may allow a policyholder to obtain coverage even where it is alleged to have made material misrepresentations in the policy application or failed to meet a condition precedent.
On July 25, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit refused to accept a Rule 23(f) interlocutory appeal in a case where an employer had asked the district court to decertify a hostile work environment class in light of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).