This is the last newsletter of 2025 from TBA’s Labor & Employment Section! We want to thank our writers — Doug Hamill, Rick Bennett, Rachel Ducker, Chuck Lee, Bailey Lowe and Greg Grisham — for their excellent articles. In this issue you will find the following submissions:

1. 6th Circuit Revamps Title VII Religious Accommodation Prima Facie Standard in Light of Muldrow Decision
2. Key Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Term and Their Potential Effects on Employment Law
3. Can Employers Fire Employees for Volatile Social Media Posts? Legal Risks, Practical Guidance for Private Employers
4. Beyond Negligence: The 6th Circuit Sets New Standard for Non-Employee Harassment Claims Under Title VII

We are always looking for volunteer attorneys to write articles. If you have an article or an idea for an article, please email section coordinator Brooke Leeton at bleeton@tnbar.org. 

— Maha Ayesh, Doug Hamill & Jeb Gerth

Legal aid organizations are outpacing the broader legal profession in adopting artificial intelligence (AI), according to a new survey by Everlaw in partnership with the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Paladin and LawSites. Based on responses from 112 legal aid professionals, the survey informed the report, “The AI Advantage: How Technology Can Help Bridge the Justice Gap.” The report found that 74% of legal aid organizations are already using AI — about double the adoption rate across the broader legal profession — highlighting how mission-driven work and limited resources are accelerating innovation. Learn more about the survey in this episode of Talk Justice as Cat Moon — with Vanderbilt’s AI Law Lab — explores the trend with experts at the forefront of legal technology.

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Appellant Prime Financial seeks reversal of the bankruptcy court’s approval of a settlement agreement between the trustee of debtor TAJ Graphics Enterprises, LLC’s, bankruptcy estate, debtor’s owner Robert Kattula, and certain parties related to Kattula. Prime Financial argues that the bankruptcy and district courts applied an incorrect standard for evaluating a Chapter 7 bankruptcy settlement and improperly valued certain assets it contends belong in the bankruptcy estate. Prime Financial also raises several procedural concerns. We AFFIRM.

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Ricco Saine was convicted of two counts of knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On appeal, he challenges his conviction on two grounds: First, he argues the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his truck following a search based on a drug dog’s positive alert. Second, he argues the district court erred by admitting a text message because it is improper propensity evidence. We disagree and affirm Saine’s conviction.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Dr. Flavia Pichiorri published many articles while working as a research scientist at The Ohio State University. Years after Pichiorri left Ohio State, though, a university committee found that she had committed research misconduct in some of these articles. The committee later informed the relevant medical journals and her current employer of the misconduct. Pichiorri disagreed with the committee’s findings and believed that its disclosures to these third parties violated the Constitution. But the district court correctly found that sovereign immunity shielded some of the university defendants from this suit and that Pichiorri’s other due-process claims failed on the merits. We thus affirm the dismissal of Pichiorri’s complaint.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. After losing in state court, HRT Enterprises sued the City of Detroit in federal court under a de facto takings theory. The district court held that the state court’s prior determinations did not bar this suit and granted summary judgment in favor of HRT without deciding when the taking had occurred. The first jury determined the date of the taking and awarded HRT $4.25 million, but the district court granted the City’s motion for a remittitur and reduced the award to $2 million. The City rejected the remittitur and elected for a new trial on damages. The second jury awarded HRT $1.97 million. On appeal, the City argues that the case is not ripe because HRT’s case rests on hypothetical facts, not an actual taking, and even if it is ripe, the state court’s prior determinations bar this suit. The City also argues that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that its actions constituted a de facto taking and that it faced unfair prejudice at trial because it had to concede that a taking occurred on a particular date even though it maintained that no taking had ever occurred. HRT cross-appeals, arguing that the district court’s remittitur was an abuse of discretion because the evidence in the first trial supported that jury’s award of damages. We affirm.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Michael Hester was granted parole after serving less than the aggregate term of his sentences on multiple convictions. He remained in prison, however, for four months beyond his parole release date because of a detainer lodged by Chester County, Tennessee, law enforcement officials. Based on this delayed release, he sued Chester County; county officials including the sheriff, a deputy sheriff, and the jail administrator; several state officials; and ten John Doe defendants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hester alleged that the Chester County defendants knowingly or recklessly used an invalid detainer warrant to prevent his release on parole, and in doing so violated his right to due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and violated the Tennessee constitution and state law. The district court granted the county defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hester timely appealed. We AFFIRM.

PER CURIAM. Kevin Clay and his best friend founded Theramedical, a pharmaceutical sales company that specialized in compounded prescriptions. But unlike other pharmaceutical companies, Theramedical marketed its compounds to prospective patients, not doctors. The pitch: the patient would receive a “commission”—a cut of the insurance reimbursement—for each prescription filled. To facilitate this payment scheme, Theramedical partnered with a pharmacy that agreed to give Theramedical a portion of the insurance reimbursements. Theramedical then heavily recruited potential patients, or “sales representatives,” from a local employer, whose insurance plan covered the prescriptions. And Theramedical directed the representatives to a doctor who readily doled out the prescriptions. Within just two years, Theramedical made millions of dollars. To minimize his taxable income, Clay established a public charity but treated its funds as if they were his own. Eventually, authorities caught wind of Theramedical’s activities and indicted Clay, along with others. A jury convicted Clay of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, and making a false statement to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay nearly $7 million in restitution. Clay appeals. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petitioner, Michael Dewayne Wright, Jr., was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, and first degree premeditated murder, for which he is serving two consecutive life sentences. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon (1) trial counsel’s conflict of interest stemming from representing two other suspects at the same time he represented Petitioner; (2) trial counsel’s failure to compel the same two suspects to testify at trial; (3) trial counsel’s failure to consult or call as a witness a firearms expert; (4) trial counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate investigation and prepare for trial; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors. Petitioner also asserts that the trial court failed in its duty to inquire about trial counsel’s conflict of interest. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the trial court failed to adjudicate Petitioner’s request for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act (“the DNA Act”). Following a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.

The pro se Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Weakley County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.