Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A nurse employed by Puerto Rico’s State Insurance Fund Corporation reported sexual harassment by a coworker in 2020 and subsequently filed an administrative charge of discrimination and retaliation. After dropping her sexual harassment claim, she pursued a retaliation claim, arguing that she endured a hostile work environment and was involuntarily transferred to a different office. The incidents underlying her claim included several allegedly meritless disciplinary actions and the eventual transfer.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted a preliminary injunction separating her from the coworker and, after trial, a jury found in her favor on the retaliation claim, awarding $300,000 in damages. The district court later denied her request for a permanent injunction seeking reassignment to her former office and expungement of disciplinary records. The court awarded her approximately $301,000 in attorney fees and costs, but she challenged the amount as insufficient. Finally, although the defendant did not appeal the judgment or fee award, the district court stayed execution of both under Puerto Rico law, pending approval of a payment plan by the Secretary of Justice.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial of permanent injunctive relief and the attorney fee award, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion on either point and that the fee reductions and denial of injunctive remedies were reasonable. The Court of Appeals also vacated the stay of execution of judgment and fees, holding that Puerto Rico’s statutory payment plan requirement could not delay enforcement of a federal judgment under Title VII. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "Garcia Colon v. State Insurance Fund Corporation" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a magistrate in the domestic-relations division of a county court, declared her candidacy for a judicial seat alongside a fellow magistrate, who was also a court administrator. During her campaign, the plaintiff distributed literature that criticized her opponent’s work schedule and duties, suggesting that the opponent performed trivial administrative tasks and questioning her competence based on personal circumstances. These campaign materials were perceived by the administrative judge as undermining the integrity of the court and casting both the court and its staff in an unfavorable light. After the plaintiff lost the primary election, the administrative judge terminated her employment as a magistrate.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the plaintiff’s suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which alleged a violation of her First Amendment free-speech rights. The district court ruled that the court itself was not a legally cognizable entity subject to suit, that sovereign immunity barred claims for money damages against the administrative judge in her official capacity, and that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible free-speech claim against the administrative judge. The plaintiff appealed only the dismissal of her free-speech claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. It held that, because the plaintiff occupied a confidential or policymaking position and her campaign speech addressed matters related to court policy and politics in a manner that undermined the loyalty and efficient functioning required by her employer, her termination did not violate the First Amendment. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that the balancing test usually applied to public employee speech was unnecessary under these circumstances. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding insubordination, the scope of judicial candidate speech protections, and the applicability of strict scrutiny. View "Gaines v. Cross" on Justia Law

A student with autism, Y.A., reported to his family that he had been sexually assaulted by fellow students at his middle school. The family’s report to the school prompted an investigation led by Detective Jonathan Graham. Another student, A.D., claimed to have witnessed the assault and identified three perpetrators, including a boy with the same first name as L.M. Although A.D. could not pick L.M. out of a photo lineup, the school later identified L.M. as the individual A.D. had previously accused of bullying. Based on the forensic interviews and supporting evidence, Graham submitted his findings to the Loudoun County Juvenile Intake Office, which determined that probable cause existed for a juvenile petition and issued a detention order for L.M. The charges against L.M. were later dropped when inconsistencies in A.D.’s statements came to light.L.M., joined by other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Graham and others, alleging violations of Virginia law and the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that L.M. had not plausibly alleged that his seizure was unsupported by probable cause or that Graham was the cause of his detention, given the independent determination by the Juvenile Intake Officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the facts alleged did not support a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under federal or state law because probable cause existed and there were no allegations that Graham withheld material information or misled the Juvenile Intake Officer. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "L.M. v. Graham" on Justia Law

An inmate at an Illinois women’s prison was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her assigned counselor, who used his authority over her access to her daughter as leverage. After the inmate’s cellmate reported the abuse to a prison investigator, the investigator and the prison warden, instead of moving to protect the victim, devised a plan to use her as unwitting “bait” to catch the counselor in the act. This plan failed, and the abuse continued. The prison’s toxic culture, where staff-on-inmate sexual abuse was widespread and often ignored, provided the backdrop for these events.In the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, the inmate filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the counselor (who defaulted), the investigator, and the warden, alleging Eighth Amendment violations for cruel and unusual punishment. The district court denied summary judgment for the investigator and warden on qualified immunity and liability, and a jury found all three defendants liable, awarding the plaintiff $19.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The district court also excluded evidence suggesting the plaintiff might have consented to the abuse, and denied the investigator and warden’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and denial of qualified immunity for the investigator and warden, holding that no reasonable official could have thought their response was appropriate. However, the appellate court reversed in part, ordering a new trial on compensatory and punitive damages (but not liability) against the investigator and warden, due to insufficient evidence supporting liability before they learned of the abuse, exclusion of relevant evidence affecting punitive damages, and failure to use a special verdict form to distinguish between theories of liability. The attorney fee award was also vacated and remanded for reconsideration. View "Doe v Macleod" on Justia Law

Police officers in Des Moines executed an arrest warrant for Tyrone Cameron, who was wanted for First-Degree Murder and had a history of violent crime. Officers surrounded a house where Cameron was hiding, and one officer brought a trained canine, Bero. When Cameron was spotted attempting to flee by jumping from the roof, Officer Meunsaveng released Bero without giving Cameron a warning. Bero caught Cameron, who did not resist further or reach for weapons as officers handcuffed him. After Cameron was secured, Officer Meunsaveng removed Bero. Cameron later sued the City of Des Moines, Officer Meunsaveng, and other officers, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related tort claims under Iowa law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment to all defendants. It found that Officer Meunsaveng did not use excessive force and had not violated any clearly established rights. As a result, claims against other officers for failing to intervene, as well as claims against the police chief and the City for failure to train, were denied. The district court also dismissed Cameron’s common law tort claims, reasoning that the absence of excessive force under federal law meant those claims could not succeed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Cameron raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer Meunsaveng violated a clearly established right by failing to warn before releasing Bero. The court reversed summary judgment on this claim. On all other claims—including the use of Bero to hold Cameron and the method of removing Bero—the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. The court remanded the Iowa common law tort claims to the district court for further consideration. View "Cameron v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

Michael Hickson, who had become severely disabled following cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury in 2017, was hospitalized multiple times for recurring infections but recovered from several serious episodes. In June 2020, while hospitalized for pneumonia, sepsis, and suspected COVID-19, his doctors at St. David’s Healthcare assessed him as having a 70% chance of survival. Despite this, he was placed on hospice care and a do-not-resuscitate order was issued, with medical staff indicating that his inability to walk or talk equated to a poor quality of life. Life-sustaining treatment, including food and fluids, was withdrawn, even as his condition temporarily improved. Michael’s family, led by his wife Melissa Hickson, sought answers and attempted to visit him, but were repeatedly denied access and information. Michael ultimately passed away, and subsequent public statements by the hospital disclosed protected health information and cast aspersions on Melissa’s fitness as a guardian.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed or granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, including disability discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and § 1557 of the ACA, § 1983 claims, state-law medical negligence, informed consent, wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs objected to the recommendations for dismissal of the disability discrimination and § 1983 claims; the district court overruled these objections and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The remaining state-law claims were later resolved on summary judgment.Upon de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that disability discrimination claims based on alleged denial of medical treatment solely due to disability are cognizable and may proceed. The court also vacated and remanded the dismissals of the informed consent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims and other state-law claims. View "Hickson v. St. David's Healthcare Partnership" on Justia Law

In this case, a police officer obtained a search warrant for a Detroit home based on information from a confidential informant and the officer’s own surveillance, which allegedly observed suspected drug transactions. The search led to the discovery of a large quantity of cocaine and firearms in a laundry hamper at the residence, along with personal mail addressed to the plaintiff, Darell Chancellor. Chancellor was later arrested and prosecuted for narcotics offenses, resulting in a conviction and a prison sentence of over fourteen years. Several years later, after a review by a Conviction Integrity Unit found the officer’s reported claims uncorroborated or refuted, Chancellor’s conviction was vacated by a state court order, and he was released from prison.Chancellor subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the officer and the City, alleging violations of his federal and state rights, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and a due process claim under Brady v. Maryland for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the officer, finding qualified immunity applied to the federal claims, no material issue of fact supported the Brady claim, and governmental immunity barred the state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Chancellor had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the officer deliberately or recklessly lied in the search warrant affidavit, as required to overcome qualified immunity. The court also ruled that Chancellor’s due process claim failed because he did not show that the officer suppressed exculpatory evidence. Finally, the court found Chancellor’s state law claims were either inadequately argued or otherwise failed under Michigan law. The disposition by the Sixth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Chancellor v. Geelhood" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

A school administrator responsible for special education at a high school in Texas alleged that his employment was terminated in retaliation for reporting incidents of child abuse by teachers under his supervision and for cooperating with a subsequent Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation. He reported the incidents to his principal, participated in a CPS interview, and raised concerns about disciplinary actions and workplace conduct. After additional workplace conflicts and an EEOC complaint, his contract was ultimately terminated by the district’s Board of Trustees following a hearing, and his administrative appeal was unsuccessful.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reviewed the administrator’s claims, which included constitutional violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, retaliation for whistleblowing, and a civil conspiracy to violate his rights. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied leave to amend the complaint, and denied a motion to alter or amend the judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the administrator’s speech—reporting child abuse to his supervisor, participating in the CPS investigation, and refusing to characterize events as his supervisor wished—was made in his official capacity as an employee, not as a citizen, and was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The court also found that he received appropriate procedural due process related to his termination and did not state a claim for substantive due process. The individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and the civil conspiracy claim failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of the administrative record and found other claims waived. View "Castille v. Port Arthur Independent School District" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to an assault complaint at an apartment building in Racine, Wisconsin, where they found a stabbing victim, Cannon, who identified Johnnie Russell as his assailant. Both the victim and Russell lived in the building, but Russell’s whereabouts were unknown. Building staff informed the officers that Russell might have returned to his apartment. Before obtaining a warrant, officers, with the help of the property manager, entered Russell’s apartment and conducted a brief 37-second sweep to check for injured persons or threats. No one was found. Later, officers secured a search warrant and conducted a thorough search. Russell challenged only the initial sweep, claiming it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Colin Powell, holding that the warrantless entry constituted a reasonable protective sweep under the Fourth Amendment, given the violent nature of the offense, uncertainty about Russell’s location, lack of information about possible other victims, and the brief, limited nature of the search.Russell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, contesting the district court’s ruling and arguing that Powell was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court decided to resolve the case on qualified immunity grounds without reaching the constitutional question. It held that, based on existing precedent, it was not clearly established that the brief warrantless sweep under these circumstances was unconstitutional. Therefore, Powell was entitled to qualified immunity.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Powell. View "Russell v. Comstock" on Justia Law