Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A cloud-based real estate services company faced persistent and grave allegations that two top agents, along with several others, drugged and sexually assaulted company agents at events. Reports began surfacing in 2020, including a viral social media post and a memo sent to company executives detailing numerous incidents. Despite these warnings, the board initially terminated one perpetrator but continued paying him, and allowed others implicated to continue working. A whistleblower director raised these issues repeatedly at board meetings and with outside counsel, but the board’s responses were limited to internal investigations led by insiders and did not result in meaningful change. The company only took further action after survivors filed federal anti-trafficking lawsuits in 2023 and the story became public.Prior to the current litigation, federal courts sustained anti-trafficking claims against the company and its leadership, finding sufficient allegations that the leadership benefited from retaining perpetrators due to the company’s revenue-sharing structure. The defendants in this derivative action are not accused of direct misconduct, but of harming the company by allowing and covering up systemic sexual abuse. The plaintiff, a shareholder, alleges the board and certain officers actively covered up abuse and breached their fiduciary duties, and that some board members failed their oversight obligations in the face of numerous red flags.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It held that workplace sexual misconduct can constitute a corporate trauma supporting a breach of fiduciary duty claim under Delaware law. The court denied dismissal as to claims against the officer alleged to have benefited from covering up abuse, and against the directors for failing to respond in good faith to clear red flags. However, it granted dismissal of a novel claim seeking to extend oversight duties to a control group of shareholders, declining to make new law in that area. View "Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System v. Sanford" on Justia Law

Jaryan Gills, an inmate at East Moline Correctional Center, was assaulted by another prisoner, suffering a broken arm that required two surgeries. Following the incident, Gills was placed in medical segregation for a month in a cell lacking a sink or toilet, relying on guards for bathroom access and provided with portable urinals and waste bags. He alleges that prison staff frequently denied him timely bathroom access, resulting in unsanitary conditions. Gills also contends that he received delayed or inadequate medical care for his injuries and other health issues, and that a prison doctor and staff were deliberately indifferent to these needs.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its decision, the district court disregarded Gills’s declarations, which largely repeated allegations from his complaint and added details not disclosed in his deposition, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court determined that Gills failed to present sufficient evidence to establish genuine disputes of material fact regarding his Eighth Amendment claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care, as well as his conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Gills’s declarations under the sham affidavit rule. While the conditions Gills experienced may have been unpleasant, the appellate court found that the evidence did not support a finding of deliberate indifference by prison officials or the medical director. The court also concluded that Gills’s conspiracy claim failed because no underlying constitutional violation was proven and there was no non-speculative evidence of an agreement among defendants. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Gills v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Ajay, a recent immigrant from India with limited English proficiency, was investigated for alleged sexual assault and attempted sexual assault against a child under 14 in Reno, Nevada. The accusations stemmed from an incident involving a 13-year-old boy, A.P., whom Ajay met at his workplace and with whom he allegedly engaged in sexual acts. During a custodial police interrogation, Detective DeSantis read Ajay his Miranda rights in English. Ajay repeatedly expressed confusion, stated he was not good in English, and requested to speak in Hindi or have an interpreter. Despite this, DeSantis continued explaining the rights in English, using props and hypotheticals, until Ajay acquiesced and the interrogation proceeded, resulting in a confession.Ajay moved to suppress his statements before the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, arguing he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights due to his limited English proficiency. At a pretrial hearing, Ajay testified through an interpreter, detailing his lack of formal English education and unfamiliarity with the American legal system. The district court denied his motion, finding the waiver valid and voluntary, citing DeSantis’s efforts to clarify the warnings and Ajay’s apparent understanding.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether Ajay’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent. The court found that Ajay's limited English skills and explicit requests for an interpreter demonstrated he did not understand his rights. The court held that law enforcement must recognize when a language barrier prevents meaningful waiver and provide an interpreter as necessary. The district court’s admission of Ajay’s confession was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given its significance at trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ajay v. State" on Justia Law

Dustin Booth, who had a history of stable employment and no prior mental health issues, began exhibiting signs of severe mental illness in early 2022 after changes in his substance use. His erratic behavior escalated over several days, culminating in a violent incident at home and a lengthy standoff with police after he barricaded himself inside his house. Booth’s wife repeatedly sought police intervention, expressing concerns that he was a danger to himself and others, and noted his access to firearms. After attempts to calm Booth and persuade him to leave his house, he eventually left with a friend, taking a gun with him. Police stopped the vehicle, leading to a confrontation in which Booth brandished the firearm and was fatally shot by officers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims. The district court held that the proposed accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—that officers should have used de-escalation techniques—was unreasonable due to the safety risks posed by Booth. The court further found that the officers’ actions during the traffic stop and subsequent use of force, including the deployment of a police dog and takedown maneuver, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.Upon review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that, as a matter of law, the ADA did not require officers to accommodate Booth’s disability in the face of objective safety risks. Additionally, the court found the officers had probable cause for a mental-health seizure and acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment in both the stop and use of force. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Booth v. Lazzara" on Justia Law

Deputy Brian Williams responded to a domestic-violence call at Tina Hight’s residence, where two dogs ran out toward him as Hight opened her door. Williams shouted warnings and fired a shot that caused the dogs to retreat. As Hight attempted to bring her dogs inside, a small Pomeranian mix ran toward Williams, prompting him to fire again in the dog’s direction. The shot missed the dog but ricocheted and struck Hight, leaving a bullet fragment in her leg.Hight filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment to Deputy Williams on the basis of qualified immunity, concluding that Williams did not violate Hight’s constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, making all reasonable inferences in favor of Hight. The appellate court considered whether Deputy Williams’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure of Hight. Applying the requirement that a seizure by force must involve an officer’s objectively manifested intent to restrain the person affected, the court found no evidence that Williams intended to restrain Hight; his actions and statements were aimed at stopping the dog. The court held that accidental force, or force directed at another target, does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s seizure standard as articulated in Torres v. Madrid and related precedents.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Deputy Williams did not seize Hight within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and thus did not violate her constitutional rights. The court declined to address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. View "Hight v. Williams" on Justia Law

Matthew Metzler, an undergraduate student at Loyola University Chicago, was expelled in January 2017 after a university hearing board found him responsible for sexual misconduct involving another student, referred to as Jane Roe. The university’s Title IX process began after Roe reported feeling pressured into sexual acts without her consent. Initially, Roe declined to file a formal complaint, but later decided to do so after continuing distress. The university investigated, interviewed both parties, and considered evidence, including text messages and witness names provided by Metzler. The hearing board credited Roe’s account over Metzler’s based on the perceived consistency and credibility of her statements and found him responsible, resulting in expulsion. Metzler’s appeal was unsuccessful.Metzler filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, asserting claims under Title IX for unlawful sex discrimination and breach of contract due to alleged procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process. The district court granted summary judgment for Loyola, finding insufficient evidence that Metzler had been discriminated against based on sex or that contractual standards had been violated in a manner lacking rational basis. The case was briefly remanded for jurisdictional review and to determine anonymity, after which the district court reaffirmed its decision for Loyola.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that Metzler failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Loyola discriminated against him on the basis of sex under Title IX, even when considering generalized public pressure and procedural errors. The court further found that Metzler’s breach of contract claim failed because Loyola had a rational basis for its disciplinary decision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Metzler v Loyola University Chicago" on Justia Law

Margaret Woods, proceeding without an attorney, sued her former employer STS Services, L.L.C., after being terminated from her job. In her Third Amended Complaint, Woods alleged that she was fired because she is a black woman and replaced by white men. Earlier versions of her complaint included claims for breach of contract and race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which she abandoned, leaving only claims of race and sex discrimination under Title VII. Woods did not provide factual details about her qualifications for the position from which she was terminated.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed Woods’s successive complaints. Each time, the district court dismissed her complaints for failure to state a claim but allowed her opportunities to amend and refile. Woods submitted her Second Amended Complaint late, which was also dismissed. Her Third Amended Complaint was timely, but again found deficient for failing to plead facts regarding her qualifications. The court gave her another chance to amend, but Woods did not file a Fourth Amended Complaint within the deadline, or at all. The district court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of STS Services, assessing costs against Woods.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that Woods failed to state a Title VII claim because her complaint did not include sufficient factual allegations to establish that she was qualified for her position, a necessary element of a prima facie case under Title VII. The Fifth Circuit also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Woods’s complaint with prejudice after repeated deficiencies and failures to amend. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Woods v. STS Services" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law

An information security executive was hired by a financial institution to improve its internal controls but was later terminated. During her tenure, a subordinate raised concerns about compliance, which led to an internal audit and ultimately contributed to the decision to fire her. She believed her firing was motivated by sex discrimination and defamatory statements made by colleagues regarding her job performance. She first filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, then a federal lawsuit against her employer and several individuals, alleging discrimination, defamation, and other claims. Most of her claims, including defamation, were dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa for failure to state a claim, and summary judgment was granted to the defendants on the remaining claims. She did not appeal.Several months after her federal lawsuit concluded, she filed a new defamation action in the Iowa District Court for Polk County against a different set of coworkers, based on statements and internal reports from more than three years prior. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by Iowa’s two-year statute of limitations for injuries to reputation. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the limitations period began at publication or, alternatively, that she was on inquiry notice of the claims by the time she filed her first lawsuit.On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the discovery rule might apply to defamation claims and that factual issues about notice precluded dismissal. Upon further review, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the plaintiff was on inquiry notice of her defamation claims more than two years before filing suit, so the claims were time-barred regardless of the discovery rule’s application. View "Betz v. Mathisen" on Justia Law

Early in the morning, a security guard at a hotel in Oklahoma City called 911 to report an unauthorized individual, Dawawn McCoy, refusing to leave a guest’s room and appearing unable to walk. Sergeant Cassidy of the Oklahoma City Police Department responded, found McCoy noncompliant and apparently under the influence, and requested medical evaluation. After medical personnel determined McCoy did not need immediate attention and he refused care, police were instructed to arrest him for trespassing. Cassidy called for additional officers, and together the officers attempted to handcuff McCoy, who resisted physically by pulling his hands in and kicking. The officers used pepper spray and a taser to subdue him. Once handcuffed, McCoy was rolled onto his stomach and restrained further. For approximately ninety seconds, according to the district court’s findings, McCoy had stopped resisting but officers continued to apply force by holding a knee on his back and pressing his legs upward. McCoy stopped responding verbally and showed signs of medical distress. Officers later attempted resuscitation and administered Narcan, but McCoy died six days later in the hospital.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, LaQuita Bruner, as administrator of McCoy’s estate, brought suit against the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the deliberate indifference claim but denied it as to the excessive force claim, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude excessive force was used after McCoy was subdued.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. The court held that, based on the facts found by the district court, the officers’ continued use of force after McCoy was subdued was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bruner v. Cassidy" on Justia Law