Week of February 22, 2021 - February 26, 2021

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Melanie Pelcha was an employee of Watch Hill Bank (“Watch Hill”) and its holding company MW Bancorp Inc. until she was terminated for refusing to turn in a time-off request form. Pelcha alleges that she was terminated on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The district court dismissed her claims on summary judgment. We see no error in the district court’s decision and AFFIRM.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case involves a zoning dispute over LaVon Moore’s right to continue using his rural property in Ohio as a private airport. Moore filed the present suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Hiram Township, members of the Township’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA members), and the Township’s Zoning Inspector (collectively, the defendants) violated (1) his procedural due process rights by not following the proper process for issuing a certificate of nonconforming use, (2) his substantive due process rights by unlawfully restricting the use of his property, and (3) his equal protection rights by not requiring other similarly situated landowners to apply for a certificate of nonconforming use. The district court dismissed the case based on the doctrine of res judicata. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. “Unfortunately, the teachings of precedent are not always as clear as we might wish.” Wright v. Spaulding, 939 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. 2019) (Thapar, J.). This bit of wisdom rings particularly true for the resolution of the motion to stay pending appeal before us today, which targets the district court’s judgment declaring unconstitutional and permanently enjoining a Tennessee statute that imposes a waiting period of 48 or 24 hours on women seeking an abortion in the state. Defendants1 argue that a stay is warranted because two precedents, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 978 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2020), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), will compel us to vacate the district court’s judgment and permanent injunction on appeal. Our dissenting colleague—in his zeal to uphold what appears to be yet another unnecessary, unjustified, and unduly burdensome state law that stands between women and their right to an abortion—agrees. We think, however, that this case is not so simple. Because neither Casey nor EMW has foreclosed Plaintiffs’2 arguments, we must decline Defendants’ invitation to follow them blindly. After all, we are bound by “complementary duties: adhering to precedent when an issue has already been decided and considering an issue with an open mind when it has not.” Wright, 939 F.3d at 702. Assessing the parties’ preliminary arguments with the requisite clear eyes, we conclude that a stay is unwarranted. Accordingly, we DENY the motion for a stay pending appeal.

The Defendant, Cody Ryan King, was convicted by a Morgan County Circuit Court jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, two counts of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and attempted statutory rape, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-522 (2010) (subsequently amended) (rape of a child), 39-13-505 (2018) (sexual battery), 39- 13-504 (2018) (aggravated sexual battery); 39-13-506 (2010) (subsequently amended) (statutory rape); 39-12-101 (2018) (criminal attempt). The Defendant was sentenced to an effective twenty-five years for the convictions. However, at the motion for new trial hearing, the trial court ordered a new trial for one count of aggravated sexual battery on the basis that the State failed to make an election of the offenses. The court, likewise, ordered a new trial for both counts of aggravated sexual battery and both counts of sexual battery on the basis that the Defendant received the ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure to request a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault by offensive or provocative contact. As a result, the court ordered a new trial for two counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of sexual battery. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his rape of a child and attempted rape of a child convictions and (2) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because the Defendant received the ineffective assistance of counsel during the pretrial proceedings, we vacate the Defendant’s convictions and remand the case to the trial court with instructions for the State to reinstate the eight-year plea offer and to negotiate in good faith.

Scarlett B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to the minor child, Hadley R. (“the Child”). In April 2019, Christy D. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights in the Campbell County Chancery Court (“Trial Court”). Following a trial, the Trial Court terminated Mother’s parental rights on three grounds of abandonment due to Mother’s failure to visit the Child, failure to support the Child, and wanton disregard for the Child’s welfare. The Trial Court further found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Khalid Turaani tried to buy a firearm at a gun show. But after an FBI agent expressed concerns about Turaani to the gun dealer, the purchase fell through. Turaani sued. Instead of suing the dealer, however, he filed the action against various officials at the FBI, from the agent who approached the dealer to the Director. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Because Turaani’s injury cannot be fairly traced to the government’s conduct, we affirm.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. It is cliché for a court to note that a case is odd. But the moniker is appropriate here—where the parties seem to ignore the fundamental question of governing law. Congress commands that we apply the law of the “several states” in this diversity action. That task, though, is made difficult here because the parties eschew their obligation to set forth what that law is.

Plaintiffs’ multi-state class action suit alleges that General Motors, LLC (GM) knowingly sold them vehicles with defective dashboards. According to Plaintiffs, that defect produces dashboard cracking that could cause severe injuries because malfunctioning airbags could turn the plastic dashboards into deadly projectiles during a crash. But no class member, or any other GM customer, experienced that dangerous scenario. At worst, Plaintiffs suffered only cosmetic damage and a potential reduced resale value from owning cars with cracked dashboards. Even still, Plaintiffs contend that GM knew about the defect and its dangers. And they believe that is enough to justify relief.

This case turns on what, exactly, Plaintiffs must plead to survive a motion to dismiss. They assert that routine testing, customer complaints, and increased warranty claims alerted GM to the defective dashboards and accompanying danger. But that is not enough to move forward absent some specifics about how and when GM (1) learned about the defect and its hazards, and (2) concealed the allegedly dangerous defect from consumers when selling cars. Even accepting that GM produced defective vehicles, under the common legal principles of the several states, Plaintiffs must show that GM had sufficient knowledge of the harmful defect to render its sales fraudulent. And Plaintiffs did not allege particular facts showing that GM fraudulently unloaded unsafe vehicles onto an unwitting public. Much like Sir Conan Doyle’s case of the dog that did not bark, this dispute centers on what we can infer from shrapnel that did not spray. And, absent more detailed pleading about GM’s knowledge, there is not enough showing that GM learned about, and ignored, the allegedly dangerous defect. So we AFFIRM.

The employee in this workers’ compensation case appeals the trial court’s ruling that the independent intervening cause principle applies to relieve her former employer of liability for continued benefits under the parties’ settlement of the employee’s prior claim. After the employee’s original compensable injury while working for the defendant employer, the parties settled the claim. The employee was placed on lifting restrictions. The trial court held the employee negligently exceeded those lifting restrictions and this conduct constituted an independent intervening cause that relieved the original employer from liability for continued workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court also held, however, that the employee’s negligent conduct did not result in a new injury. On appeal, we hold that, if the employee’s activity results in only an increase in pain but there is no new injury or aggravation of the original injury, the independent intervening cause principle is not applicable to relieve the original employer of liability. We reverse the trial court’s holding that the independent intervening cause principle relieves the defendant employer of liability for workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm the trial court’s holding that there was not a new injury or an aggravation of the employee’s condition and hold that the employee is entitled to statutory medical benefits, attorney fees, and costs.

Sandra Cummings was injured at work on April 29, 2010, and February 7, 2012. She filed complaints against Express Courier International, Inc. (“Employer”), Hartford Insurance Company (“Hartford”), and Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”).1 The trial court found that Ms. Cummings is permanently and totally disabled as the result of an injury to the body and that Employer is entitled to an offset based on Ms. Cummings’s social security benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) (2014) (applicable to injuries occurring prior to July 1, 2014). In this appeal, Ms. Cummings argues that the trial court erred in applying the social security offset because her injury was to a scheduled member. In addition, Hartford argues that the trial court erred in ordering it to pay temporary total disability benefits because Zurich was the insurance carrier at the time of Ms. Cummings’s second injury. The appeal has been referred to this Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51. We affirm the trial court’s judgment that Ms. Cummings is permanently and totally disabled as a result of an injury to the body and that Employer is entitled to a social security offset. We modify the judgment by requiring Zurich to reimburse Hartford for the payment of temporary total disability benefits.