The NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Monday dismissed its lawsuit challenging Fayette County’s 2021 electoral map as discriminatory after county lawmakers passed a new map that complies with the Voting Rights Act and U.S. Constitution, the Tennessee Lookout reports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in February, claimed the map adopted by the county commission in 2021 was chosen “at least in part with the intent to racially discriminate against Black voters.” The Tennessee comptroller’s local redistricting guide requires county legislative bodies to consider minority representation when redistricting. Black voters make up more than 25% of Fayette County’s population, but the 19-member county commission is entirely white. Fayette County rejected the allegations in the federal lawsuit but opted to review and revise the map. The commission unanimously approved a new electoral map with three majority-Black, single-member districts, which will be used in the 2026 election cycle. The federal lawsuit’s status is unclear, as the last court-ordered status update was submitted June 23, one day before the commission adopted the new map.

Tennessee's U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn is pushing to reduce air traffic controller shortages. Blackburn introduced the Control Tower Continuity Act on Thursday, which would allow air traffic controllers to be exempt from the mandatory retirement age of 61 as long as they meet certain standards and provide more flexibility during shortages, WSMV reports. Blackburn’s office said staffing has been a longstanding issue for the Federal Aviation Administration, which is short about 3,000 air traffic controllers nationwide. “Healthy and skilled air traffic controllers should not be forced to retire at age 61,” Blackburn said. “As the United States faces a shortage of air traffic controllers, Americans are forced to endure delays, cancellations and safety concerns. The Control Tower Continuity Act would empower healthy and experienced air traffic controllers to work beyond the current mandatory retirement age to address air traffic controller shortages.”

The TBA Construction Law Section is excited to announce that the inaugural Joint Georgia/Tennessee Construction Conference will take place Oct. 9-10 in Chattanooga. The first day will be composed of an evening networking reception welcoming attendees with complimentary drinks and hors d'oeuvres. The second day will be packed with high quality CLE sessions for both the Georgia and Tennessee attorney, such as regional differences in construction law, a view from the bench session featuring judges and arbitrators, a case study session and more. Six to seven CLE hours are anticipated for this program. CLE credit will be submitted to both Georgia and Tennessee.

Register and find program updates here. 

In this appeal, the employer challenges the trial court’s order requiring it to authorize a second opinion examination on the issue of surgery. The employee was injured when she was attacked in the employer’s parking lot in 2019. In 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that, among other provisions, left open the employee’s entitlement to reasonable and necessary future medical expenses as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204. That settlement agreement was approved by the trial court. In 2024, one of the authorized treating physicians recommended additional surgery, which the employer’s insurer authorized. However, prior to agreeing to undergo this surgery, the employee asked for a second opinion as to the surgery recommendation, which the employer declined to provide. The employee then filed a new petition asking the court to order the employer to authorize a second opinion examination and seeking an award of attorneys’ fees. Following unsuccessful mediation and a hearing, the trial court entered an order compelling the employer to authorize the second opinion examination and determined the employee was entitled to attorneys’ fees. In the order, the court instructed the employee’s attorney to file a motion presenting additional evidence with respect to the attorneys’ fee claim, which the employee’s attorney did. Sixteen days after the court’s order was issued, the employer filed a notice of appeal. Because we conclude the trial court’s compensation order is incomplete at this point, we hold this appeal in abeyance and remand the case for additional findings.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case involves alleged physical abuse of Plaintiff James King by United States officials. King sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680, and in the same lawsuit sued the individual government employees under the private cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims, but King appealed only the Bivens claim, so the FTCA judgment became final. In the Bivens litigation on appeal, King v. United States (King I), 917 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2019), rev’d, Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (2021), the individual defendants relied in part on the “judgment bar” of 28 U.S.C. § 2676, which provides that a judgment under FTCA § 1346(b) “shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim,” 28 U.S.C. § 2676. The question arose whether the bar applies when an adverse FTCA judgment (like the one in this case) was based on failure to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1346, which sets forth the requirements for recovery under the FTCA, as contrasted to an adverse FTCA judgment based on an exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680 to the overall scope of the FTCA. The issue was ultimately resolved squarely in favor of the Defendants by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, reversing a split decision by our court in favor of King on that issue. Brownback, 592 U.S. at 211. Having lost on the judgment-bar issue, King then filed a Rule 60(b) motion in the district court to reopen the FTCA judgment, so that he could retroactively withdraw his FTCA claim, and thereby avoid the judgment bar after all. The district court denied this relief, and King appeals. The district court properly denied the motion, however, because King’s asserted basis for reopening amounted to “a straightforward claim of either attorney error or strategic miscalculation,” neither of which, the district court correctly reasoned, is a valid basis for a reopening under Rule 60. King v. United States, 2024 WL 4609079, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2024).

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this multi-district products liability suit, Plaintiffs allege that they purchased defective Chrysler Pacifica minivans from FCA. Several months after the case progressed into discovery, FCA learned that some plaintiffs had agreed to arbitration clauses when they purchased their minivans and moved to compel those plaintiffs to arbitration. The district court denied FCA’s motion to compel, however, after it found sua sponte that FCA had waived its right to arbitrate. FCA now challenges that decision in this interlocutory appeal, and, for the reasons below, we reverse.

In this dependency and neglect action, the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected in 2015 and found that the child was the victim of severe child abuse perpetrated by one or both of his parents. The parents appealed that decision to the circuit court. Because a termination petition was filed shortly thereafter, the circuit court stayed the dependency and neglect appeal pending the outcome of the termination action. Both parents’ parental rights were terminated pursuant to the severe child abuse ground in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4), but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed that determination. The dependency and neglect appeal then resumed in the circuit court, and the Department of Children’s Services filed an amended dependency and neglect petition alleging new facts. The mother filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition, and she filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in the termination case barred all claims in the dependency and neglect case under the doctrine of res judicata. The circuit court denied both motions but permitted the parties to pursue an interlocutory appeal. We reverse the circuit court’s determination that the severe child abuse claim was not precluded, but we affirm the court in all other respects.

Appellee filed a complaint against Appellant over a contract dispute, and Appellant failed to timely file a responsive pleading. The trial court granted a default judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellant filed a motion for the trial court to set aside the default judgment, and the trial court denied that motion. On appeal, Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the default judgment by failing to properly consider all relevant factors and by disregarding an issue related to venue. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DeKalb County lawyer Lena Ann Graves Buck was publicly censured on July 9 by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Buck provided consultation regarding a workers’ compensation case to a client. Despite the client not signing a retainer agreement nor paying an attorney fee, Buck met with the client on three occasions during which she provided legal advice. Buck discussed the workers’ compensation issue with the client at two of the meetings, but did not apprise the client of a statute of limitations deadline. Over the next three years, Buck represented the client on a disability claim, though the client believed Buck also was handling the workers’ compensation matter. The client did not discover the statute of limitations had passed until several years later. In addition to these findings, the court determined that Buck entered into a business transaction with the client without first advising the client in writing of the desirability of seeking, or giving a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of, independent legal counsel. The court found that these actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(a)(2) and 8.4(d).

The Tennessee Supreme Court issued a public censure to Davidson County attorney Zachary Ty Carden on July 9. The court found that Carden, while representing a client in a contested divorce action, failed to take proper action to submit his client’s discovery responses, resulting in the entry of a judgment against his client for opposing counsel’s fees. After the divorce action settled through mediation, the court found that Carden failed to take action to facilitate entry of the final divorce decree and did not respond to his client’s requests for information, delaying finalization of the divorce action. These actions were determined to violate Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4 and 3.2.