Plaintiff's Age Discrimination Action Affirmed, and Criminal Matters
In US v. Hatchett, No. 10-1062, the court affirmed defendant's wire fraud sentence where the district court did not err in finding that the testimony at sentencing, bank records, and defendant's admissions were sufficient to establish the number of victims by a preponderance of the evidence.
In US v. Worman, No. 09-2334, the court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for mailing, possessing, and transporting a pipe bomb, holding that 1) given the weight of the evidence, certain improperly admitted statements had only a slight effect on the jury's verdict; and 2) substantial evidence tied defendant to the illegal conduct, providing a sufficient basis for the verdict. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the district court improperly tied the sentencing variance it granted to the mandatory minimum.
In Newberry v. Burlington Basket Co., No. 09-3082, an action alleging that defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) by terminating plaintiff's employment because of her age, the court affirmed judgment for plaintiff where 1) the jury's award of damages was supported by the finding of liability under the ICRA, and the incorrect statement of the law under the ADEA did not prejudice defendant; and 2) the district court expressly considered the factors relevant to determining a reasonable fee award under Iowa law, and made findings of fact regarding those factors.