Mar 6 2026
3rd Cir. 2:22-cv-01791 Panel Decision

THERESA A. GALLAGHER v. CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Central Valley School District, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove age discrimination under the ADEA and PHRA. The court held that the school district's reasons for hiring a younger candidate were legitimate and that the plaintiff's evidence of pretext amounted to mere speculation.

Mar 6 2026
3rd Cir. 24-2761 Panel Decision

CHRISTOPHER G. MASSEY v. BOROUGH OF BERGENFIELD

The Third Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment, predicting that the New Jersey Supreme Court would invalidate the state's 'Background Circumstances Rule' for employment discrimination claims. The court held that the rule, which imposes a heightened burden on majority-group plaintiffs, is incompatible with the text of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Mar 5 2026
9th Cir. 1:21-cv-00498-BLW Unpublished

Luis Ortiz Vega v. GEICO Choice Insurance Company

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for GEICO, holding that Idaho law treats the interpretation of an unambiguous insurance policy as a question of law. The court found no genuine issue of material fact because the insured was never legally obligated to pay damages, and the insurer had fulfilled its duty to communicate settlement offers.

Mar 4 2026
7th Cir. 24-1817 Panel Decision

SHAREEF CHILDS v. CHERYL WEBSTER, et al

The Seventh Circuit held that a prison's refusal to provide accurate prayer schedules does not violate RLUIPA or the Free Exercise Clause when inmates can obtain them through donations or purchase. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the de minimis cost of buying a schedule does not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise.

Mar 4 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1051 Panel Decision

SAT Agiyar, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for 7-Eleven in a franchise dispute, ruling that the franchisor had valid grounds to rescind the agreement due to the franchisee's failure to maintain required net worth and operate as a 24-hour store. The court further held that 7-Eleven's refusal to permanently waive penalty fees did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Mar 4 2026
10th Cir. 2:19-CV-02147-TC Panel Decision

MARK ENSMINGER v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC

The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, holding that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue for a Credit Repair Organization Act violation because he received services worth more than his advance payment before the payment was collected. The court ruled that a statutory violation alone does not create a concrete injury when the consumer has already received the full value of the bargain.

Mar 4 2026
1st Cir. 25-1312 Panel Decision

JOHN B. CRUZ CONSTRUCTION CO., INC v. BEACON COMMUNITIES CORP.; BEACON COMMUNITIES SERVICES LLC; BEACON LENOX LLC; BEACON LENOX 2 LLC

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Beacon Communities, ruling that insufficient evidence supported claims of a breached oral promise or racial discrimination. The court held that the record failed to establish an enforceable contract or prove that race was a but-for cause of the plaintiff's exclusion from the Lenox project.

Mar 4 2026
9th Cir. 3:21-cv-05854-BHS Unpublished

WILLIAM HUNT, Jr v. MEDTRONIC USA, INC

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff alleging harm from a malfunctioning medical device. The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of public impact for his consumer protection claim and lacked necessary expert testimony for his negligence claim.

Mar 3 2026
3rd Cir. 24-2816 Panel Decision

JOHN WAYNE v. JOHN E. WETZEL; GEORGE LITTLE; TABB BICKELL; MICHAEL CLARK; LEE ESTOCK; DEREK F. OBERLANDER; JAIME SORBER; TAMMY FERGUSON; SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF COR...

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for prison officials against an inmate's Eighth Amendment claim regarding his placement on the Restricted Release List. The court held that the inmate's documented history of violence and ongoing misconduct provided a legitimate penological justification for his continued restricted housing.