Raymond M. Kethledge
How Judge Kethledge rules, drawn from 47 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Kethledge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed class settlement, preferential payments to named plaintiffs and counsel paired with nearly worthless relief for unnamed members defeated Rule 23 fairness.
“The parties and their counsel negotiated a settlement that awards each of the named plaintiffs $1000 per ‘affected child,’ awards class counsel $2.73 million, and provides the unnamed class members with nothing but nearly worthless injunctive relief.”
Evidence that admissions interviews centered on an applicant’s disability rather than the later-stated reasons for rejection supported an inference of discriminatory pretext.
“Yet according to Sjostrand’s testimony — which of course a jury would be entitled to believe — neither of her interviewers even mentioned any of the putative reasons why her application was rejected, and each interviewer instead devoted about half the interview to a discussion of her Crohn’s disease. The resulting inference is that the interviewers’ real concern — and thus the reason they rejected Sjostrand’s application — was her Crohn’s disease.”
In an education case, Kethledge distinguished accommodations that let a student complete assignments from instruction tailored to help the student learn a skill he was capable of acquiring. Grade advancement and workarounds did not by themselves establish an appropriate individualized plan.
“when a child is capable of learning to read, and his IEP does not aim to help him overcome his particular obstacles to doing so, that IEP does not provide him the ‘free appropriate public education’ to which he is entitled.”
In a speech-therapy case, Kethledge treated a restriction keyed to the viewpoint expressed in counseling as subject to strict scrutiny rather than rational-basis review of professional conduct. The government needed evidence directly connecting the prohibited speech to the harm it asserted.
“The defendants thus have not established the ‘direct causal link’ that the Court’s precedents require.”
In a force appeal, Kethledge framed clearly established law around whether any force was permissible against a nonresisting person, not whether precedent involved the same device or degree. A fact-specific defense cannot avoid cases that already prohibit gratuitous force categorically in that setting.
“But at issue here is the illegality of any physical force, not its calibration.”
Procedural preferences
Court records carry a strong presumption of public access; a sealing proponent must justify secrecy document by document, and any seal must be narrowly tailored.
“The courts have long recognized, therefore, a ‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.”
The reviewed statutory decision rejected an agency requirement that Congress had included in a parallel Medicare provision but omitted from the Medicaid provision.
“Congress included a 60-percent-of-billings requirement in the Medicare provision (§ 1395l(x)), but chose to omit that requirement from the Medicaid provision (§ 1396a(a)).”
Kethledge severed an invalid clause expanding judicial review of arbitration awards while preserving the parties' broader agreement to arbitrate. The text did not make arbitration conditional on de novo review, and years of performance showed removal of that clause caused no material adverse change.
“We therefore deem § 6.3 severed from the agreement, which otherwise remains in effect.”
Cautions
A contractual six-month limitations period could not shorten the statutory filing period for unwaivable FLSA and Equal Pay Act claims in the reviewed case.
“We hold that, as applied here, the limitations provision in Boaz’s employment agreement operated as a waiver of her claims under the FLSA and the Equal Pay Act.”
Reviewing a civil-rights fee award, Kethledge required counsel to exercise billing judgment before submitting the petition. Block billing, unrelated work, and excessive or redundant time warranted sharp reductions rather than being treated as an opening position for negotiation.
“When a party submits a fee petition, it is not the opening bid in the quest for an award.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In sum, we hold that the government's collection of business records containing cell-site data was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. ... The judgments in both cases are affirmed.”
“We reject the EEOC's arguments and affirm. ... The district court's judgment is affirmed.”
“Instead the IRS now seeks from this court a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary remedy reserved to correct only the clearest abuses of power by a district court. We deny the petition. ... The petition is denied.”
“The settlement in this case is not fair within the meaning of Rule 23, and the district court abused its discretion in finding the contrary. ... The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We vacate the district court's approval of the settlement, vacate all of its orders sealing documents in the court record, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We reverse the district denial of qualified immunity on Sterling’s takings claim, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“The district court’s June 1, 2018 order is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Olney.”
“The district court’s judgment is vacated, and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.”
“The district court’s August 2, 2021 order is reversed as to its denial of summary judgment to Houk, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Houk.”
“On this record, however, the City’s decision not to return him to duty was objectively reasonable. The district court’s judgment is affirmed.”
Draft for Judge Kethledge with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kethledge, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kethledge's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace