Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Jena McClellan v. Midwest Machining, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided August 16, 2018No. 17-1992Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThapar, Circuit Judge

Congress does not write statutes on a blank slate. Instead, it legislates against the backdrop of existing common law. So, when Congress wants to displace the existing common law, it must do so clearly. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 52 (2012). Because Congress did not clearly override the common law ratification and tender-back doctrines when it passed Title VII or the Equal Pay Act, I would apply both rules in McClellan's case and remand for further fact-finding.

I

Jena McClellan claims that she entered into a release agreement with her employer…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  3. O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 391 v. TerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API