Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Methodist Hospitals of Dallas (Methodist) for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC asserts that Methodist’s categorical policy of hiring the most qualified candidate violates the ADA when a qualified disabled employee requests reassignment to a vacant role, even if he or she is not the most qualified applicant. The EEOC also alleged that Methodist failed to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee, who was not reassigned to a vacant position for which she applied. The district court granted Methodist’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. The EEOC appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett requires Methodist to make exceptions to its most-qualified-applicant policy and that the employee was entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court as to Methodist’s most-qualified-applicant policy and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court affirmed the judgment as to the EEOC’s reasonable accommodations claim involving the employee. The court explained that at summary judgment, an employee’s “unilateral withdrawal from the interactive process is fatal to her claim,” so long as the employer “engaged in a good-faith, interactive process with the employee regarding her request for a reasonable accommodation.” Based on the evidence, no reasonable jury could find that Methodist was unwilling to participate in the interactive process. When the employee did not respond to either the August 7th letter or the follow-up letter after her appeal of her termination, she caused the breakdown of the interactive process. Thus, Methodist did not act unlawfully. View "EEOC v. Methodist Hospitals" on Justia Law

M.Q., a student attending public school in Knox County, Tennessee, was diagnosed with autism. M.Q. is largely nonverbal and has developmental delays in communication skills, social/emotional behavior, and pre-vocational skills. A suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101, alleged that M.Q. was improperly excluded from the general education classroom setting and placed him in a self-contained classroom for students with disabilities for nearly all his kindergarten academic instruction.The district court held that this placement violated the IDEA but rejected claims that also it also violated Section 504 and the ADA. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court correctly found that the district complied with the statutory requirements with respect to including a general education teacher on M.Q.’s individual education plan (IEP) team— albeit under their most literal interpretation. The IEP cannot stand because it placed M.Q. in a more restrictive educational setting than his disability required. View "Knox County, Tennessee v. M.Q." on Justia Law

Moss purchased cocaine from a DEA informant and was charged with possession with intent to deliver 1,000 or more grams of cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Moss’s first attorney moved for an entrapment hearing. Steingold then began representing Moss. At the entrapment hearing, 10 days later, Steingold attested to minimal pre-trial preparation. Moss was the only witness he presented. Steingold requested a continuance to contact witnesses he learned about during Moss’s direct and cross-examination. The court permitted Steingold to contact one witness but denied a continuance. The prosecution presented five witnesses and multiple exhibits. The court denied Moss’s motion to dismiss based on entrapment.At trial, Steingold waived his opening argument, presented no witnesses, and stipulated to the admission of the transcript from the entrapment hearing as substantive evidence. For one of the government’s two witnesses, Steingold did not object during his testimony or conduct any cross-examination. Steingold waived his closing argument. On appeal, Moss unsuccessfully argued that Steingold provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by waiving Moss’s right to a jury trial and stipulating to the admission of the evidence from the entrapment hearing.The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order of habeas relief. The state court’s denial of Moss’s ineffective assistance claims under Strickland was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Moss v. Miniard" on Justia Law

Crain, a Black woman, became the Chief of the Environmental Management Service at the VA Center in July 2014, subject to a year-long supervisory probationary period, with a GS-12 pay grade. Before Crain applied, she was told that if she successfully completed her probationary period, the Center would try to get the position’s pay grade increased to the GS-13 level. After Crain assumed the position, her supervisor added responsibilities to the role in an effort to justify a higher pay grade and asked Scaife, an HR classification specialist, to upgrade the role. Scaife concluded that she was unable to “justify anything higher than a GS-12.” Crain alleges that six White service chiefs’ pay grades were elevated to GS-13 or GS-14. During Crain’s tenure as Chief of EMS, several performance and behavior-related concerns arose.In June 2015, Crain was notified that she had failed to satisfactorily complete her supervisory probationary period and was being reassigned to a different role with the same salary. The memo identified multiple “performance-based deficiencies” as the basis for the decision. Months before her reassignment, Crain had initiated an EEOC complaint. After her reassignment, Crain sued under Title VII. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the VA, rejecting Crain’s claims of disparate pay based on her race and that she was removed as Chief of EMS in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. View "Crain v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Freeman was convicted, along with Miller and Collier, of second-degree murder. The jury had heard the confession of Miller, a non-testifying codefendant, with redactions that replaced the names of Collier and Freeman, with the substitutes “the first guy” and “the second guy.” The court gave a limiting instruction that the statement was to be considered only as to Miller, not as to the other defendants, in order to protect Freeman’s Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness against him. Freeman’s objection was overruled and rejected on appeal in state court.The district court concluded that a “Bruton” violation occurred and that the violation was not harmless, and granted Freeman habeas relief. The Third Circuit reversed. A Bruton violation occurred. When a statement is redacted— whether by substituting the codefendant’s name with a neutral pronoun, a blank space, or a symbol—in such a manner that “[a] juror … need only lift his eyes to [the codefendant], sitting at counsel table” to understand who is being implicated, the introduction of that statement is a Sixth Amendment violation. However, there was ample other evidence against Freeman, and the violative statement was largely duplicative of other evidence; there is no “grave doubt about whether [the error] had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” The error was harmless. View "Freeman v. Superintendent Fayette SCI" on Justia Law

Individuals Plaintiffs, Uber, Inc. (Uber) and Postmates, Inc. (Postmates, and collectively Plaintiffs) appealed the district court’s orders denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing their Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed this action to enjoin the State of California and the Attorney General of California (Defendants), from enforcing California Assembly Bill 5, 2019 Cal. Stats. Ch. 296 (A.B. 5), as amended by California Assembly Bill 170, 2019 Cal. Stats. Ch. 415 (A.B. 170) and California Assembly Bill 2257, 2020 Cal. Stats. Ch. 38 (A.B. 2257, and collectively A.B. 5, as amended), against them. A.B. 5, as amended, codified the “ABC test” adopted by the Supreme Court of California in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018).1 A.B. 5, as amended, however, incorporated numerous exemptions into its provisions.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part district court orders dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded. The panel first held that, even under the fairly forgiving rational basis review, Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that A.B. 5, as amended, violated the Equal Protection Clause for those engaged in app-based ride-hailing and delivery services. Thus, Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the primary impetus for the enactment of A.B. 5 was the disfavor with which the architect of the legislation viewed Uber, Postmates, and similar gig-based business models. The panel held that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ due process claims because Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that A.B. 5, as amended, completely prohibited them from exercising their “right to engage in a calling.” View "LYDIA OLSON, ET AL V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the State of California, and Rob Bonta and Xavier Becerra in their capacities as the current and former Attorney General after a federally licensed firearms dealer refused to complete Plaintiff’s purchase of an antique shotgun. Plaintiff alleged the dealer had received a letter from the Department pursuant to section 28220, subdivision (f)(4), advising it that the Department had been unable within the statutory period to ascertain Plaintiff’s eligibility to purchase the firearm. Although the Department’s letter, in accordance with section 28220, subdivision (f)(4), authorized the immediate transfer of the firearm to Plaintiff at the dealer’s discretion, the dealer elected not to do so, telling Plaintiff it was unwilling to “take the risk.” In his operative second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged a federal civil rights claim and requested declaratory relief.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained Plaintiff’s causes of action are premised on the contention that section 28220, subdivision (f)(4), violates the Second Amendment or is preempted by federal law. Both arguments are wrong as a matter of law. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated how his complaint could be amended to state viable claims, the trial court did not err in sustaining the State’s demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. View "Regina v. State of California" on Justia Law

Appellant, a United States citizen and veteran, alleges Appellees (Foreign Officials) detained and tortured him in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Appellant argued that the Foreign Officials did so to extract a false confession that he was an American mercenary. That is enough, in Appellant’s view, to establish that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Officials. If not, he asserts alternatively that jurisdictional discovery is warranted.   The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of the Foreign Officials’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and its denial of Appellant’s request for jurisdictional discovery. The court explained traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice do not save Appellant’s complaint. The court held Appellant failed to demonstrate that exercising specific jurisdiction over the Foreign Officials, in this case, would meet the requirements of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. And he also failed to describe particular ways in which jurisdictional discovery would cure his complaint’s defect. View "Darryl Lewis v. Kalev Mutond" on Justia Law

In 2014, Lopez became the manager at La Casa’s domestic violence shelter. In 2016, Lopez gave birth and experienced complications. She provided La Casa with certifications relating to her condition. Lopez alleged La Casa sent harassing communications, failed to engage in an interactive process to determine if Lopez’s disability could be accommodated, and refused to provide “modest” accommodations suggested by Lopez’s doctor. Lopez alleged that her efforts to return to work were “rebuffed,” so she was forced out of her job, and that she was denied a job elsewhere because La Casa misrepresented the reasons for her termination.The court of appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of La Casa. A claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code 12945(a)(3)(A), requires proof that the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; the plaintiff requested accommodation of this condition, with the advice of her health care provider; the plaintiff’s employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation; and with the reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of the job. The trial court correctly applied those elements, properly placing the burden on Lopez to prove that she had a condition related to pregnancy and that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodation. View "Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres" on Justia Law

To improve a stretch of U.S. Route 22 near Altoona, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) sought two right-of-way easements from for new drainage pipes, covering less than one-tenth of an acre of Merritt's property. PennDOT initiated condemnation and over Merritts’s objections, acquired title to and possession of the easements. With no success in that state-court proceeding, Merritts filed a federal suit, claiming that PennDOT’s acquisition of the easements and the compensation offered for them violated the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania law.The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice, some based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, the remainder under “Burford abstention,” which protects “complex state administrative processes from undue federal interference.” The Third Circuit affirmed in part. The “Ex parte Young” exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity does not allow Merritts’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the PennDOT officials in their official capacities because he does not seek prospective relief from an ongoing violation. Merritts’s section 1983 claims for damages against the PennDOT officials in their individual capacities for allegedly unlawfully acquiring the easements for PennDOT cannot be dismissed under Burford abstention; his claims for damages premised on the allegedly unlawful acquisition of the easements meet the conditions for dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but his claims concerning the denial of just compensation do not. The dismissals on Eleventh Amendment and Rooker-Feldman grounds should have been without prejudice. View "Merritts v. Richards" on Justia Law