an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing on this issue. With respect to the second argument (regarding Aviall’s remedy selection), the court denies summary judgment. Cooper maintains that AvialTs public meeting was “meaningless” because the TNRC had already approved Aviall’s proposed remedy, but the effect of the TNRC’s approval was simply to make the proposed remedy available to Aviall (subject to certain comments and admonitions), and did not dictate that remedy. See P. Apr. 11, 2008 App. 5009-12 (TNRC Letter of Approval). The cases that Cooper cites are distinguishable because implementation of the remedy in those cases began before the public meeting, or because the remedy decision had already been finalized by a consent judgment. See Reg’l Airport Auth., 460 F.3d at 708 (<HOLDING>); Union Pac., 215 F.3d at 837-38 (holding that
holding that public meetings were not meaningful where first was held without adequate notice and second was held after remedy was already selected by means of consent judgment holding while florida courts have recognized that notice of public meetings is mandatory the preparation of an agenda that reflects every issue that may come up at a properly noticed meeting is not and notice need not be given of every potential deviation from a previously announced agenda the public has the right to attend open meetings but no authority to interfere with the decisionmaking process holding that public meetings were not adequate where first was held without sufficient notice and second was held after remedy was already selected by means of consent judgment holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding that public meetings held after implementation of final remedial action were not meaningful and that the only public meetings held before remedial action were not meaningful because they did not discuss selection of remedy