CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WORLDWIDE EQUIPMENT OF TN, INC.; WORLDWIDE EQUIPMENT, INC.; WORLDWIDE EQUIPMENT OF WV, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-5031
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.
Nos. 7:14-cv-00107; 7:14-cv-00108; 7:15-cv-00018; 7:15-cv-00019;
Amul R. Thapar, District Judge.
Argued: October 6, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 20, 2017
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question of what one must do in order to sue for the refund of a tax that someone else paid. Worldwide Equipment, Inc. remitted a 12% federal excise tax collected from purchasers of its heavy duty trucks, and sought a refund from the United States, claiming that the trucks qualified as exempted, “off-highway” vehicles under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(48). The refund statute for such a case, 26 U.S.C. § 6416(a), requires a refund claimant to show that it has made arrangement to avoid double payments by, as relevant to this case, submitting written customer consent forms. Worldwide did not supply such consents to the IRS. The district court, relying on long-standing Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedents applying predecessor statutory provisions, United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. 386 (1934) and United States v. Standard Oil Co., 158 F.2d 126 (6th Cir. 1946), dismissed Worldwide’s refund claims on nonwaivable sovereign immunity grounds because the consent forms were statutorily required as part of a “duly filed” claim under 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). Notwithstanding Worldwide’s arguments on appeal, dismissal was proper.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD,
Respondent,

WEBSTER WILLIAMS, JR.,
Intervenor.
   No. 17-3083
On Petition for Review from the United States
Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board.
Nos. ARB 14-092; ARB 15-008.
Argued: October 11, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 20, 2017
Before: KEITH, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Despite having had its position derailed by every federal court to date, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board steams ahead. The Board interprets a retaliation clause in the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA)—located in a recent amendment regarding “Prompt medical attention,” 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)—to provide sick leave to all railroad employees for off-duty injuries and illnesses.

In this case, the Board’s broad interpretation meant Webster Williams, Jr.—a Grand Trunk employee with a non-work-related history of anxiety and depression—was granted relief from his termination for six collectively-bargained-for-as-unexcused absences because he was “following . . . a treatment plan of [his] treating physician.” 49 U.S.C. § 20109(c)(2).

Traditional tools of statutory interpretation lead us to a different conclusion: subsection (c)(2), just like its preceding subsection (c)(1), applies only to on-duty injuries. Thus, we grant the petition and remand with instructions that the proceeding below be dismissed.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SIMS BUICK-GMC TRUCK, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-3871
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:14-cv-02238—Solomon Oliver Jr., District Judge.
Argued: October 4, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 20, 2017
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. General Motors provides sales incentives to dealers who sell cars to GM employees, retirees, and their family members at a discounted rate. As part of the process, the dealer must collect a signed agreement from the purchaser that establishes his eligibility for the program. In 2014, General Motors audited one of its dealers, Sims BuickGMC Truck, and discovered a number of transactions in which Sims had failed to collect the agreement from purchasers within the timeline set by General Motors. GM debited Sims’ account $47,493.28 for improper incentive payments, and Sims filed this lawsuit alleging breach of contract and violations of the Ohio Dealer Act. The district court granted summary judgment for General Motors. Because the parties’ dealership arrangement permitted the debit and because a timely filed Consumer Dealer Agreement constitutes “material documentation” under § 4517.59(A)(20)(a) of the Ohio Dealer Act, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JUDITH PERRY; ERIN LANE; AIMEE DOOLING,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
RANDSTAD GENERAL PARTNER (US) LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-1010
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 5:14-cv-11240—John Corbett O’Meara, District Judge.
Argued: November 30, 2016
Decided and Filed: November 20, 2017
Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. In this putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Judith Perry, Erin Lane, and Aimee Dooling (Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to their employer, Randstad General Partner (US) LLC (Randstad), rejecting their argument that Randstad improperly classified them as exempt employees not entitled to overtime pay. We AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART.