Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Patrick Jones Jr. was hired as a probationary deputy sheriff by the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and sent to a police training academy. During his training, Jones obtained a document from his girlfriend, believing it to be a study guide, and offered to share it with classmates. The document was actually a cheat sheet for a prior version of the Illinois state law enforcement exam. After an investigation by the training institute, which concluded Jones likely did not understand the document’s true nature, the Sheriff’s Office nonetheless terminated his employment. The termination letter, authored by Undersheriff Lawrence Oliver, cited Jones’s conduct as violating the office’s code of conduct and was distributed internally and to the office’s Merit Commission. Jones later struggled to find new law enforcement employment, attributing this difficulty to the termination letter.Jones filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the termination letter was defamatory and that it deprived him of occupational liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office and Undersheriff Oliver, finding that Jones failed to show it was virtually impossible for him to find new employment and that the statements in the letter were either true or opinion, and that Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Sheriff’s Office was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Jones did not allege a policy or custom as required for municipal liability. The court further held that Jones’s occupational liberty claim failed because there was no evidence that Undersheriff Oliver publicly disclosed the termination letter. Finally, the court held that Undersheriff Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law for statements made within the scope of his official duties. View "Jones v. Lake County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

A prisoner at a Michigan correctional facility was involved in a physical altercation with another inmate, after which he was subdued and handcuffed by corrections officers. Two officers then escorted him through a hallway and into a prison yard. Upon entering the yard, the officers performed a takedown maneuver, throwing the prisoner to the ground and fracturing his foot. The prisoner claimed he did not resist or act aggressively before the takedown, while the officers asserted that he had lunged away, prompting their response. Surveillance footage captured much of the incident, but some key moments were obscured or unclear. The prisoner suffered significant injury as a result of the takedown.Following the incident, a prison misconduct hearing was held, and the hearing officer found the prisoner guilty of assaulting staff, relying heavily on the video evidence, which the prisoner was not permitted to view. The prisoner did not seek judicial review of this administrative finding. He then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, holding they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that the hearing officer’s factual findings should have preclusive effect and that the video evidence clearly contradicted the prisoner’s account.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the hearing officer’s findings should not have preclusive effect because the prisoner lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the facts, particularly due to his inability to access crucial evidence. The court also found that the video evidence did not so clearly contradict the prisoner’s version as to warrant summary judgment. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force, and that the officers had forfeited the “clearly established” prong of their qualified immunity defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nash v. Bryce" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary participated in the Angola Prison Rodeo from 1996 to 2019, selling leather belts and earning approximately $80,000. He alleged that prison officials confiscated about $16,000 of his earnings, claiming the deductions were for taxes, commissions, and maintenance fees. The inmate filed a grievance through the prison’s administrative process, arguing that the deductions were unauthorized and that he was denied a due process hearing regarding the seizure of his property. The prison denied his grievance, explaining the deductions, and the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies. He then sought relief in Louisiana state court through a petition for writ of mandamus, which remained unresolved for over a year.Subsequently, the inmate filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various prison officials conspired to deny him due process in connection with the confiscation of his property. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing any standalone claims regarding the denial of the prison grievance but allowed the conspiracy and due process claims to proceed. The district court adopted this recommendation, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the inmate’s complaint did not adequately allege a pre-deprivation due process claim and that, at the time of the alleged conduct, it was not clearly established that the inmate had a protected property interest in the proceeds from the sale of crafts made and sold under prison auspices. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Savage v. Westcott" on Justia Law

A married couple, both employees of UT-Battelle, objected to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, specifically because of their belief that the vaccines’ development involved the use of fetal cell lines from abortions, which conflicted with their Christian faith. UT-Battelle required employees seeking religious exemptions to undergo a panel interview and read a “fact sheet” presenting religious leaders’ support for vaccination. Employees granted religious accommodations were placed on unpaid leave, while those with medical accommodations were not. Mrs. Bilyeu ultimately received a medical exemption before the policy took effect and did not lose pay or work time. Mr. Bilyeu, however, was placed on unpaid leave after exhausting his vacation days, returning to work only after the policy was rescinded.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to UT-Battelle on all claims except Mrs. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, which was later settled. The court found that Mrs. Bilyeu lacked standing and that Mr. Bilyeu had not suffered a materially adverse employment action under Title VII.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to Mrs. Bilyeu, holding she lacked Article III standing because she suffered no cognizable injury after receiving her medical accommodation. For Mr. Bilyeu, the Sixth Circuit vacated the summary judgment on his disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims, instructing the district court to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which eliminated the “materially adverse” requirement for adverse employment actions under Title VII. The court reversed the summary judgment on Mr. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the interview process could dissuade a reasonable worker from seeking a religious accommodation, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle, LLC" on Justia Law

Jill Esche, who was seven months pregnant, was admitted to Renown Regional Medical Center in Nevada with severe hypertension and erratic behavior. Hospital staff, believing she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and her fetus, petitioned for her involuntary commitment under Nevada law. While the petition was pending, Esche was kept in the hospital, given psychiatric and medical treatment against her will, restricted from visitors and phone use, and not informed that a public defender had been appointed for her. After giving birth by C-section, the hospital decided to withdraw the commitment petition but allowed Esche to leave while she was still in fragile condition. She died outside near the hospital that night. Her estate and survivors sued the hospital and several staff members, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the defendants on some claims, including unreasonable seizure and procedural due process claims, but denied summary judgment on others, such as substantive due process, conspiracy, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims. The court also denied the defendants’ assertion of a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability, finding that the defense did not apply because the hospital was not required by law or directed by a public official to hold Esche involuntarily. Both sides appealed: the defendants challenged the denial of the good-faith defense, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of other constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s denial of the good-faith defense was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as the defense is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. The court dismissed both the defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Estate of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana" on Justia Law

Rodriquez D’Aundre Pam was shot and killed by Evansville police officers responding to a 911 call reporting that a man matching Pam’s description was in a backyard with a handgun, allegedly pointing it at a dog and at the caller. Officers arrived, encountered Pam on the property, and repeatedly ordered him to show his hands and get on the ground. Pam did not comply, appeared to reach for the doorknob, then moved along the house, put his hands in his pockets, and removed them when ordered. As officers continued to issue commands, Pam raised his left hand and kept his right hand at his side. Officers then fired multiple shots, killing him. A handgun was found near Pam’s body. Body camera footage captured the incident, but the video was unclear as to whether Pam was holding a gun at the moment he was shot.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding it undisputed that Pam pointed a gun at them before they fired. Pam’s estate appealed, challenging the grant of summary judgment for Officers Offerman and McQuay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the estate. The court found that, while the video did not conclusively show Pam pointing a gun, the officers’ belief that Pam was threatening them with a firearm was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the 911 report, Pam’s actions, and the recovery of a gun. The Seventh Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their perception and response did not violate clearly established law. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Pam v. City of Evansville" on Justia Law

A prospective employee applied for a position as an occupational therapist with a rehabilitation company, which required COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. The applicant requested a religious exemption, submitting a written statement and a supporting letter from a friend citing religious objections to vaccines developed with fetal cell lines. The company questioned the applicant about her vaccination history and, finding her responses insufficiently sincere, denied the exemption and rescinded the job offer. The applicant filed a complaint with the Kansas Department of Labor, which found the company had violated Kansas law by inquiring into the sincerity of her religious beliefs.The company sought judicial review in the Johnson District Court, which reversed the agency’s decision. The district court held that the relevant Kansas statute, which prohibits employers from inquiring into the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs when considering COVID-19 vaccine exemptions, was preempted by federal law—specifically, the federal Vaccine Mandate for Medicare and Medicaid providers and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court also found the Kansas statute violated due process because it lacked a rational basis.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the federal Vaccine Mandate and Title VII do not expressly or impliedly preempt the Kansas statute, because federal law permits but does not require employers to inquire into religious sincerity. The court further held that the Kansas law does not violate due process, as it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting religious liberty and provides adequate procedural protections. The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Powerback Rehabilitation v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

A woman was working late at her place of employment, a business located in a commercial cul-de-sac, when she was approached at night by two individuals carrying flashlights. Fearing for her safety, as she did not know they were police officers and they did not identify themselves, she attempted to drive away. The officers, who were investigating a report of a possible break-in at a different address in the same cul-de-sac, fired their weapons at her vehicle as she drove up the driveway. The woman was not physically harmed, but her car was struck by bullets and later declared a total loss. She was detained in a police cruiser for several hours before being released without charges.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia reviewed the woman’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful seizure, excessive force, and unlawful property seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on state-law claims but denied summary judgment on the federal claims, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude the officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and that their actions violated clearly established law. The officers appealed, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the officers seized the plaintiff both by physical force (when they shot her car) and by a show of authority, that no reasonable officer could have believed there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize or shoot at her, and that the warrantless seizure of her vehicle was not justified by exigent circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Watkins v. Davis" on Justia Law

A white man, after a dinner in Palm Harbor, Florida, targeted a Black man, his girlfriend, and his four-year-old daughter as they drove on a county-administered public road. The defendant, whom the victims did not know, repeatedly attempted to run their car off the road, shouted racial slurs, and made threatening gestures. At a red light, he exited his vehicle and physically confronted the Black man, continuing his racial abuse. Witnesses and police confirmed the defendant’s aggressive and racially charged conduct, and the defendant made further racist statements to law enforcement after his arrest. The defendant’s ex-girlfriend testified that such behavior was typical for him.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida indicted the defendant on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B), which prohibits racially motivated interference with the use of public facilities. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Thirteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause, and that the indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied these motions. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to convict, it must find the defendant acted “because of” the victim’s use of the public road, applying a “but-for” causation standard. The jury found the defendant guilty on one count and not guilty on the other. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for acquittal and a new trial, and sentenced him to 24 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Thirteenth Amendment, as Congress may rationally prohibit racially motivated violence interfering with public facilities as a badge or incident of slavery. The court also found no error in the jury instructions, the handling of jury questions, or the sufficiency of the evidence. The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Leahy" on Justia Law

Two African American truck drivers employed by a large transportation company in Nashville alleged that their supervisors subjected them to a racially hostile work environment. The plaintiffs claimed they were assigned longer routes and more hours than their non-African American colleagues for the same pay, denied certain benefits, and given older or more damaged trucks. They also testified that their supervisors, one of whom was also African American, repeatedly called them “monkey” and “monkey ass,” used demeaning language, and threatened or criticized them in ways not directed at white coworkers. The plaintiffs reported this conduct to company liaisons and managers, but the alleged harassment continued. One plaintiff resigned due to the conditions, while the other was terminated for alleged performance issues, which he disputed.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence of race-based harassment to support a hostile work environment claim. The court reasoned that the terms used by the supervisors were not inherently racist, that the plaintiffs had not shown the terms were used only against African Americans, and that the plaintiffs’ comparative evidence was insufficient because it did not establish the race of the relevant comparators with the required specificity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the use of “monkey” and “monkey ass” by supervisors constituted evidence of race-based harassment, given the well-established history of those terms as racial slurs against African Americans. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ comparative and other evidence was admissible and sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and the employer’s liability. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Smith v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc." on Justia Law