Wanda Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23924
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2005, Indianapolis-Marion County banned smoking in most public buildings, with exceptions for bars with certain alcohol-tobacco configurations.
- In 2012, the ordinance narrowed exemptions, banning smoking in most bars and taverns except private clubs, tobacco bars, and some cigar-related venues.
- Bar owners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting due process, equal protection, takings, and freedom of association claims under federal and Indiana constitutions.
- At trial, bar owners presented expert Dr. Dunn disputing health harms of secondhand smoke; City presented Dr. Hyland supporting health harms and Dr. Zollinger estimating economic costs; Visit Indy employee testified industry support for the ordinance.
- The district court granted judgment for the City, struck Dr. Dunn’s testimony for failure to provide Rule 26(a)(2) report, and denied injunctive relief.
- This appeal followed, with issues including evidentiary rulings, constitutional challenges, and Indiana state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/credibility of Hyland testimony | Hyland’s method supports disease causation from secondhand smoke | Credibility and methodology properly supported; for abuse-of-discretion review | Credibility sustained; admissibility treated under Rule 702 with forfeiture for not preserving challenge |
| Whether Dunn testimony was properly stricken | Dunn should be treated as an expert and his report admissible | Dunn lacked proper expert-report, credibility undermined; harmless error | Striking of Dunn upheld; any error harmless |
| Rational basis review of smoking ban under Due Process | Ordinance lacks rational basis due to health-evidence weaknesses | Ordinance bears a rational relation to legitimate ends | Bar owners fail to negate plausible rational basis; due process claim rejected |
| Equal Protection: traditional bars vs tobacco specialty bars | Disparate treatment lacks rational basis | Classification reasonably related to public health goals | Rational basis upheld; claim fails |
| Takings claim under Penn Central | Ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking | Regulation is public program; not a taking | No taking; factors do not show substantial diminution in value |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (test for admissibility of expert testimony based on methodology)
- Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) (gatekeeping vs credibility in evaluating expert evidence)
- Romero v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational basis review framework for constitutional challenges)
- Pennsylvania Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor Penn Central takings analysis)
- Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (takings path-dependent considerations and notice)