CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
D.O.; A.O.; R.O.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
VICKIE YATES BROWN GLISSON, in her official capacity as Secretary for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-5461
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:15-cv-00048—Danny C. Reeves, District Judge.
Argued: November 29, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 27, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, CLAY, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COOK, Circuit Judge. The federal Child Welfare Act (“the Act”) specifies that “[e]ach State with a plan approved under this part shall make foster care maintenance payments on behalf of each child who has been removed from the home of a relative . . . into foster care.” 42 U.S.C. § 672(a). This appeal asks whether the Act creates a private right to foster-care maintenance payments enforceable by a foster parent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We find that it does, and therefore reverse the district court’s contrary decision.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KIRSTEN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-6078
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:15-cv-02150—S. Thomas Anderson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: January 27, 2017
Before: GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Kirsten Williams was employed by AT&T Mobility Services LLC (AT&T) as a Customer Service Representative (CSR). Williams suffered from depression and anxiety attacks, which caused her to be frequently absent from work. AT&T terminated Williams in July 2014 for job abandonment and for violating the company’s attendance policy. Williams then filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. She asserted claims against AT&T for failure to provide her with a reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, disparate treatment, and retaliation. AT&T moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted as to all of Williams’s claims. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.