GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Citing a conflict with her religious beliefs, plaintiff Aimee Sturgill objected to defendant American Red Cross’s mandate that she become vaccinated against COVID-19. The Red Cross denied her request for an accommodation, concluding that she was medically—not religiously— opposed to the vaccine and then terminated her employment. Sturgill alleges the Red Cross’s decision reflects a failure to accommodate her religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that she did not plausibly allege a prima facie case sufficient to support a failure-to-accommodate claim. Elevating the pleading standard to require a prima facie case was erroneous. However, the district court correctly held that Sturgill did not separately set forth a disparate-treatment claim. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Kevin Lindke claims that James Freed, the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan, violated Lindke’s free-speech rights by blocking him on Facebook and deleting his Facebook comments. We originally ruled for Freed on state-action grounds, but the Supreme Court adopted a different test. Because the factual record isn’t developed enough for us to apply the Supreme Court’s revised test, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are a group of consumers who purchased or leased a model year 2011–2016 GM Silverado or Sierra 2500 or 3500. Plaintiffs allege that they selected and ultimately purchased or leased their vehicles, at least in part, because of the Duramax diesel engine and systems therein, as advertised and represented by GM. In advertisements for the subject vehicles, GM claimed that the vehicles ran “clean diesel,” had “low emissions,” had “a whopping 63%” reduction of “Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions” when compared to previous models and turned “heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist.” GM omitted any reference to how—or when—its emissions system worked to accomplish these “clean diesel” imperatives. Contrary to GM’s advertisements, however, Plaintiffs allege that the subject vehicles actually emit NOx and other pollutants at levels many times higher than (i) their counterparts, (ii) what a reasonable consumer would expect, (iii) what GM advertised, (iv) the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions standards, and (v) the levels set for the vehicles to obtain a certificate of compliance that allows them to be sold in the United States. On those bases, Plaintiffs brought this action against General Motors LLC, Robert Bosch GMBH, and Robert Bosch LLC, alleging violations of state consumer protection, fraud, and deceptive trade practices laws, as well as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that (1) Plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act, and (2) Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a RICO action. Because Plaintiffs’ state- law claims are not impliedly preempted by the Clean Air Act, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the state-law claims. Because Plaintiffs are indirect-purchasers and thus do not have standing under RICO, however, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the RICO claims.

A Greene County jury found the Defendant, Mr. Vikash Patel, guilty of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was suspended after service of ten days in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his conviction. He also asserts that the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for his blood sample and that, as such, the analysis of this sample should not have been admitted. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case involves a post-divorce petition for criminal contempt filed by the husband against the wife for alleged violations of the parties’ permanent parenting plan. The trial court determined that the husband had not met his burden of proof to establish criminal contempt. The husband timely appealed to this Court. Because the husband’s appellate brief does not comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Appeals Rule 6, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

This appeal arises out of the partial denial of a Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”) petition filed by the Appellant/Defendant, Jane Roe (“Roe”).1 This case was previously before this Court after Roe appealed the trial court’s determination that the TPPA was not applicable to the claims of Appellee/Plaintiff, John Doe (“Doe”). In the first appeal, this Court found that Roe’s filing of a Title IX complaint fell within the scope of the TPPA and remanded the case back to the trial court. On remand, the trial court granted in part and denied in part Roe’s TPPA petition. Roe now appeals the trial court’s partial denial on remand. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The defendant, William Roger Campbell, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder, and the trial court imposed consecutive life sentences. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting one of the victim’s cellphone records into evidence; the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and the trial court erred in ordering his life sentences be served consecutively. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we reverse the imposition of consecutive sentences and remand to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for consideration of the consecutive sentencing factors outlined in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995).

The Defendant, Eric Lamar Caffey, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of second degree murder. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether his due process rights to a fair trial were violated by the State’s failure to correct false testimony given by a material witness; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The legal battle around the Swan Ball, a long-standing annual event benefiting Nashville's Cheekwood Estate and Gardens, is expanding with a countersuit from the estate against a group of volunteer event coordinators. Volunteers filed a lawsuit against Cheekwood in July accusing it of a "coup," saying the organization took control of an event that had always been volunteer-run. In a counterclaim, Cheekwood now accuses the volunteers of attempting to seize control of the ball and its trademark. The new filing also states that volunteers "attempted covertly to gain unauthorized access to Cheekwood's computers and files" earlier this year. The dispute has halted planning for the 2025 Swan Ball, according to the estate, while the volunteer group says it plans to move forward with the event next year with a new beneficiary. Axios Nashville has more on the story.

The legal battle between Michael Oher and the Tuohy family, as depicted in the film "The Blind Side,” continues. Oher is suing the Tuohys, alleging that they exploited him financially and misled him. The Tuohys, who took Oher into their home when he was a teenager, deny these allegations and claim that Oher has attempted to extort them. The case centers around a conservatorship established when Oher was 18, which the Tuohys claimed was intended to protect him financially, but which Oher claims he was duped into entering. In 2023, a judge ended the conservatorship. Oher is additionally seeking a full accounting of funds he believes the Tuohys made during the conservatorship, including money for “The Blind Side” movie, which he says he never received. According to the New York Times Magazine, the lawsuit has sparked intense media coverage and raised questions about the accuracy of the film's portrayal of the relationship between Oher and the Tuohys. While the legal proceedings continue, The Times reports, the case is exposing the potential for misunderstanding and exploitation in the industry.