PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTIN MENDYK, and KHADIJA COLE, individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated; HYON PAK; MICHELLE DAVISON, v. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. fka SAS Analytics Inc., FAST ENTERPRISES, LLC; CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEVEN GESKEY; SHARON MOFFETT-MASSEY, SUZETTE MARIE HEATHCOTE - Articles

All Content

PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTIN MENDYK, and KHADIJA COLE, individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated; HYON PAK; MICHELLE DAVISON, v. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. fka SAS Analytics Inc., FAST ENTERPRISES, LLC; CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEVEN GESKEY; SHARON MOFFETT-MASSEY, SUZETTE MARIE HEATHCOTE

Posted by: David Bevis on Jun 15, 2023

Head Comment: With Separate Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part by BATCHELDER

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Jason Hawkins, Debbie K. Taylor, Kimberly K. Pendrick, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Steven Geskey and Sharon Moffett-Massey. Kevin S. Ernst, ERNST CHARAR & LOVELL, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Patti Jo Cahoo, Kristin Mendyk, Khadija Cole, Hyon Pak, and Michelle Davison.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Jason Hawkins, Debbie K. Taylor, Kimberly K. Pendrick, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Steven Geskey and Sharon Moffett-Massey. Kevin S. Ernst, Hannah R. Fielstra, ERNST CHARAR & LOVELL, PLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Patti Jo Cahoo, Kristin Mendyk, Khadija Cole, Hyon Pak, and Michelle Davison. David M. Blanchard, BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Suzette Marie Heathcote. Stephen J. Rosenfeld, MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for CSG Government Solutions. Erik F. Stidham, HOLLAND & HART LLP, Boise, Idaho, Walter J. Piszczatowski, HERTZ SCHRAM PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Fast Enterprises, LLC.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. The modernization of Michigan’s process for identifying fraud in unemployment benefits, according to four residents of the State, came with a cost: It undermined their due process rights. The four residents all obtained unemployment benefits, and the State’s new software for identifying unemployment fraud targeted them but did not immediately deprive them of any benefits. They sued two Unemployment Insurance Agency supervisors, among many others. In the first stage of this case, the complaint and proffered class action covered claims in which the State terminated welfare payments without adequate notice and a hearing. But at this stage in the case, after the denial of a motion to certify a class and with just four plaintiffs remaining, the lawsuit covers only claims in which the State offers several procedural protections before any elimination of benefits. Because the remaining plaintiffs have failed to show that these procedures violate any clearly established law, the supervisors are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Suzette Heathcote separately appeals the denial of her motion to intervene in the case. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding her motion untimely, we affirm that order.

Attachments: