Federal Judiciary

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Four female employees of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the brewery in this ex-discrimination and retaliation case. Three of the employees?Jackie Cunningham, Amanda Hawkins, and Cherri Hill?allege that sexual harassment by a coworker, Bill Robinson, created a hostile work environment in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 4112. Hill and the fourth employee, Kathryn Jackson, also claim that the brewery is liable for Robinson?s acts of retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Anheuser-Busch on the discrimination claims after finding that (1) the women failed to make a showing that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work nvironment, and (2) no reasonable juror could conclude that Anheuser-Busch knew or should have known of the harassment, or that it failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. As to the retaliation claims, the court dismissed them on the grounds that (1) this circuit has not previously recognized a claim for coworker retaliation, and (2) Hill and Jackson failed to allege conduct by Anheuser-Busch that rose to the level of an adverse employment action. For the reasons set for below, we AFFIRM the district court?s grant of summary judgment as to Hawkins?s hostile-work-environment claim and Jackson?s retaliation claim, but we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment as to Cunningham?s and Hill?s hostile-work-environment claims and Hill?s retaliation claim and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RYAN, Circuit Judge. Thirty-four Tennessee middle school students sued various officials of the Overton County, Tennessee, public school system under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and others, alleging that the defendant school authorities violated the students? constitutional right to privacy by installing and operating video surveillance equipment in the boys? and girls? locker rooms in Livingston Middle School (LMS), and by viewing and retaining the recorded images. The defendant Overton County school board members, the director of schools, the LMS principal, and the assistant principal, moved for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity. The district court denied their motions and they now appeal. We conclude that the district court correctly denied summary judgment to the school officials, who are not entitled to claim the defense of qualified immunity, and incorrectly denied summary judgment to the defendant board members and the Director of Schools, who are immune.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Richard Taylor (?Taylor?), formerly a deckhand on the M/V Ann Peters for TECO Barge Line, Inc. (?TECO?), sued his former employer for damages, claiming exposure to coal tar left him with a permanent, severe skin reaction. After a jury awarded Taylor one million dollars, TECO brought this appeal. On appeal, TECO asserts that the district court made three evidentiary errors, erred in denying its motion for a judgment as a matter of law, and erred in refusing to offer a jury instruction on the harmlessness of the chemical in question. Additionally, TECO argues that the jury verdict was excessive. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court?s judgment.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This case presents civil rights claims against various law enforcement officers for unlawful arrest and use of excessive force. Now before the court is an appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court denying two defendants? motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In particular, the district court held that, due to outstanding questions of fact, defendants Portage County Sheriff?s Deputy Duane M. Dawson and Village of Brady Lake Police Officer Allen C. Begin were not entitled to qualified immunity. Both defendants appealed this ruling. Dawson?s appeal (No. 05-4234) was dismissed on joint motion of the parties on March 2, 2007. Now, for the reasons that follow, we hold that the district court erred in ruling that Officer Begin is not entitled to qualified immunity.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, challenges the constitutionality of Ohio?s DNA Act, which requires the collection of DNA specimens from convicted felons. Below, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the Act is violative of his Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, due process and equal protection rights. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. Finding the district court?s opinion to be well-reasoned and consistent with the growing body of case law on such challenges to DNA statutes, we affirm.