The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed hearing of three cases involving issues of bankruptcy, overtime pay and federal civil rights. The three cases will be heard in oral argument during the fall 2022 session of the Court.
In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the court will consider whether a debtor in bankruptcy can be held liable for someone else’s fraud, even though he is barred from discharge in a bankruptcy suit for using false pretenses, misrepresentation or misrepresentation. actual fraud under 11 USC § 523(a)(2)(A). The case arose when Kieran Buckley sued a couple for failing to disclose various issues with a house the couple had sold to Buckley. Defendant Kate Marie Bartenwerfer is seeking to overturn the judgment against her because she claims she was unaware of the fraud at Buckley. A lower court sided with Buckley and ruled that Bartenwerfer could not be released because the debt had been obtained by fraud. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District remanded the case to the District Court which later reversed, finding that Bartenwerfer could be discharged because she lacked the requisite knowledge of the fraud to be held responsible. Buckley again appealed the decision.
Helix Energy Solutions Group c. Hewitt revolves around the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which establishes work and payment standards for employees. The court will consider whether a supervisor who earns more than $200,000 a year is entitled to overtime pay under 29 CFR § 541.604, despite an exemption in 29 CFR § 541.601 for well-paid executives. Michael Hewitt says he is entitled to overtime pay, but Helix Energy Solutions Group says Hewitt is exempt from overtime pay as a highly paid executive. However, employees must be remunerated on a salary basis to qualify for the exemption. Hewitt claims that because he is paid a daily wage, he does not fall under the exemption. The lower court granted summary judgment to Helix Energy Solutions Group. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the case in favor of Hewitt.
In Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, the Court will consider whether it should reconsider prior rulings that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 gives rise to private enforceable rights under the Article I expense clause. on Nursing Homes (LFNHA) gives rise to these private rights. 42 USC § 1983 is a US federal law that grants individuals the right to bring a civil action for deprivation of their rights. The case was first brought by Gorgi Talevski after his condition worsened in the care of a state-run nursing facility in Indiana. Talevski attempted to sue under 42 USC § 1983, alleging that the nursing facility violated portions of the FNHAA. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to declare, finding that the FNHAA did not provide a private right of action recoverable under 42 USC § 1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overruled, finding that the FNHAA privately provides enforceable rights over residents of nursing facilities, such as Talevski.