Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A high school social studies teacher with a history of disciplinary issues was terminated after posting inflammatory messages on her Facebook account, which was followed primarily by former students. The posts, made during nationwide protests following the killing of George Floyd, included comments and memes that were perceived as racially insensitive and vulgar. Although the teacher had set her account to private and did not accept friend requests from current students, the posts quickly circulated within the school community, prompting complaints from students, parents, staff, and widespread media attention. The school district cited her prior suspensions for similar conduct, the disruption caused by her posts, and her failure to appreciate the impact of her comments as reasons for her dismissal.After her termination, the teacher requested a review hearing before the Illinois State Board of Education, where she argued that her Facebook posts were protected by the First Amendment. The hearing officer applied the Pickering balancing test and found that her dismissal did not violate her constitutional rights. Subsequently, the teacher filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the school district and associated individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a First Amendment violation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that she was collaterally estopped from bringing her claim and, alternatively, that her claim failed on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the teacher failed to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find in her favor on her First Amendment claim. Applying the Pickering balancing test, the court concluded that the school district’s interest in addressing actual and potential disruption outweighed the teacher’s interest in free expression, and her posts were not entitled to First Amendment protection. View "Hedgepeth v Britton" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an Illinois prisoner, was involved in a physical altercation with several correctional officers at Stateville Correctional Center. Following the incident, he was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center, where he received medical treatment. He was issued a disciplinary ticket for a major infraction, which led to an adjustment committee hearing at Pontiac. At the hearing, he was allowed to present his side but was not permitted to call witnesses or view video evidence. The committee recommended several disciplinary measures, including three months of solitary confinement in conditions the plaintiff later described as appalling, with unsanitary and unsafe features.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the disciplinary committee members and the warden violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing solitary confinement without sufficient procedural protections. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had not established a protected liberty interest, had not shown inadequate procedures, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that three months in segregation, even with harsh conditions, did not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest protected by due process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the district court’s conclusion regarding the liberty interest, holding that the plaintiff’s evidence of three months in unusually harsh and unsanitary solitary confinement raised a genuine issue of material fact about deprivation of a protected liberty interest. However, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiff’s confinement. The court clarified that, going forward, short terms of solitary confinement combined with comparably harsh conditions will suffice to show a protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections. View "Jackson v. Anastacio" on Justia Law

Frankie Nelson worked at Provident Hospital, part of the Cook County Health and Hospital System, from 1997 until her voluntary retirement in 2010. She held union positions, first as Environmental Services Supervisor and later as Building Custodian I. Between 2002 and 2005, Nelson and a male colleague, Henry White, shared the duties of Acting Assistant Director of Environmental Services, each handling different aspects of the role in addition to their regular jobs. Nelson later alleged that, during this period, she was paid less than similarly situated male employees due to sex discrimination, focusing her claim on the pay disparity between herself and White, as well as two Directors, Nate Gordon and Jerry Brown.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted summary judgment in favor of Cook County on both Nelson’s Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims. On appeal, Nelson challenged only the summary judgment on her Title VII claim, arguing that the district court failed to apply the correct legal standard and erred in determining that White was not a valid comparator. The district court had found that Nelson did not provide evidence of White’s compensation to support her claim of pay disparity and further concluded that White, Gordon, and Brown were not similarly situated to Nelson due to differences in job duties, qualifications, and supervisory roles.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court applied the correct legal standards, including both the McDonnell Douglas framework and the totality of the evidence approach. The court concluded that Nelson failed to provide sufficient evidence of pay disparity with White and that none of the alleged comparators were similarly situated to her. Therefore, summary judgment for the defendant was properly granted. View "Nelson v County of Cook" on Justia Law

A woman who had been living with a couple in Tennessee returned to their home to collect her belongings after being told she could no longer stay there. A dispute arose over the ownership of a car parked at the residence. The woman alleged that one of the residents, Matthew Howell, pointed a gun at her and refused to let her retrieve the car. She called 911, reporting the incident and stating that Howell was intoxicated and had threatened her. When police arrived, they spoke with the woman, who reiterated her allegations. Officers knocked on the door, and upon Howell opening it, they detected the smell of marijuana. The officers entered the home, arrested Howell for aggravated assault and resisting a frisk, and temporarily handcuffed his girlfriend, Alisha Brown, while conducting a protective sweep. The officers also allowed the woman to access the disputed car.Howell was indicted by a Tennessee grand jury for aggravated assault and resisting arrest. At trial, the jury convicted him of reckless aggravated assault, but the conviction was later amended to simple assault and ultimately reversed on double jeopardy grounds by an appellate court. Meanwhile, Howell and Brown filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging Fourth Amendment violations and state tort claims against the officers and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on all federal claims. It found that the officers’ warrantless entry was not clearly established as unconstitutional under existing precedent, that probable cause supported Howell’s arrest, and that Brown’s temporary detention did not violate clearly established law. The court also found no clearly established law prohibiting the officers’ actions regarding the disputed car and rejected the malicious prosecution claim. The court affirmed summary judgment for the officers and municipality. View "Howell v. McCormick" on Justia Law

A student, C.M., experienced repeated racial harassment by peers while attending public school in Michigan, including being subjected to racial slurs, threats, and physical assault. The harassment occurred during her sixth, seventh, and ninth grades, prompting her to transfer to another school district in her freshman year. C.M. and her parents alleged that the school district and its officials failed to adequately respond to her complaints, asserting violations of federal law (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause) and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and its officials. The district court found that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to C.M., the school’s responses to the reported incidents did not amount to deliberate indifference under the applicable legal standards. C.M. appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court assumed, without deciding, that deliberate indifference claims are cognizable under Title VI for student-on-student racial harassment. Applying the deliberate indifference standard, the court held that the school’s responses to each reported incident were not clearly unreasonable and reflected good faith efforts, including investigations, disciplinary actions, and proactive measures. The court concluded that C.M. failed to establish deliberate indifference, and therefore her claims under Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act could not succeed. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Malick v. Croswell-Lexington Dist. Schs." on Justia Law

A former dancer at two adult entertainment clubs in Manhattan filed a class charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging pervasive sexual harassment and a hostile work environment affecting herself and other female dancers. She claimed that the clubs’ policies and practices fostered this environment, including being forced to change in open areas monitored by video and being pressured to engage in sexual acts with customers. After receiving the charge, the EEOC requested information from the clubs, including employee “pedigree” data such as names, demographics, and employment details. The clubs objected, arguing the requests were irrelevant and burdensome, but the EEOC issued subpoenas for the information.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the EEOC’s petition to enforce the subpoenas, finding the requested information relevant to the investigation and not unduly burdensome for the clubs to produce. The clubs appealed and, while the appeal was pending, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to the charging party, who then filed a class action lawsuit in the same district court. The clubs argued that the EEOC lost its authority to investigate and enforce subpoenas once the right-to-sue letter was issued and the lawsuit commenced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the EEOC retains its statutory authority to investigate charges and enforce subpoenas even after issuing a right-to-sue letter and after the charging party files a lawsuit. The court also found that the employee information sought was relevant to the underlying charge and that the clubs had not shown compliance would be unduly burdensome. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoenas. View "EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp." on Justia Law

Jeffery Krueger died following a traffic stop in Oklahoma initiated by Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office deputies. The stop began when deputies suspected Mr. Krueger of minor traffic violations and possible intoxication. After Mr. Krueger stopped his car in a turn lane, deputies forcibly removed him from his vehicle, allegedly pulling him by his hair, slamming his head on the pavement, and repeatedly using tasers as they attempted to handcuff him. Additional law enforcement officers arrived and, according to the plaintiffs, either participated directly or failed to intervene as Mr. Krueger, now handcuffed and prone, was further restrained with leg shackles and a hobble tie. Mr. Krueger stopped breathing at the scene and was later pronounced dead at a hospital.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma reviewed the case after the plaintiffs, Mr. Krueger’s parents and estate representatives, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants, including deputies and police officers, moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment for most defendants, finding that, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there were sufficient grounds to show clearly established constitutional violations. The court found material disputes regarding the amount and duration of force used, including the number of taser applications and the nature of the prone restraint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find the defendants used excessive force both in the initial removal and restraint of Mr. Krueger and in the prolonged prone restraint after he was subdued. The court also held that the failure to intervene in the use of excessive force was clearly established as a constitutional violation. The district court’s orders denying summary judgment were affirmed. View "Krueger v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Marcus D. Evans, an inmate at the Varner Supermax Unit in Arkansas, was placed in full restraints to attend a prison program. After returning to his cell, officers removed his hand restraints but refused to remove his leg restraints, despite his repeated requests. Evans remained in leg restraints for approximately 15 hours, during which he experienced pain, had difficulty sleeping, and was forced to cut off his clothing to shower. Medical records indicated he reported significant pain but showed no serious physical injury. Evans alleged that the officers’ refusal to remove the restraints was intentional and stemmed from prior altercations and threats.Evans filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, asserting an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers. The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, finding that while a jury could find a constitutional violation, the right was not clearly established. The district court declined to adopt this recommendation, holding that existing precedent clearly established that prolonged restraints without penological justification could constitute excessive force, and denied qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that the officers’ refusal to remove the leg restraints constituted a use of force, and that Evans’s pain and discomfort, even absent serious injury, were sufficient to support an excessive force claim. The court further found that existing case law clearly established that subjecting an inmate to prolonged restraints without penological justification could violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. View "Evans v. Smith" on Justia Law

A prisoner incarcerated in a California state prison was found guilty of a serious institutional rule violation after a search of his shared cell uncovered a large quantity of inmate-manufactured alcohol. The reporting officer believed both cell occupants were aware of the alcohol due to its strong odor and issued a rules violation report (RVR) for each. The original RVR was classified as a serious offense by Captain Hopper, and after a disciplinary hearing, the senior hearing officer found the prisoner guilty. The chief disciplinary officer (CDO) at that time affirmed the result. The prisoner appealed administratively, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) office of grievances found merit in his due process claim, ordering the RVR to be reissued and reheard.After the RVR was reissued and classified by a different officer, a new hearing was held. The prisoner’s cellmate provided statements suggesting the prisoner had no knowledge of the alcohol, but the hearing officer again found the prisoner guilty. By this time, Hopper had become the acting CDO and conducted the final review, affirming the hearing results. The prisoner’s subsequent administrative appeal was unsuccessful, leading him to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, which was denied. He then sought relief in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.The appellate court held that under California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3320(h), an officer who classified the original RVR is disqualified from conducting the final review of the same RVR as CDO. Because Hopper performed both roles, the court found this violated the regulation’s requirement for impartiality. The court granted the petition, vacated the disciplinary finding, and ordered a new review by a non-disqualified CDO or restoration of lost credits and pay if such review is not feasible. View "In re Dixon" on Justia Law

A man who was previously convicted of a felony in Virginia sought to have his voting rights restored after his release from prison. Under Virginia’s Constitution, individuals convicted of felonies lose the right to vote, but the Governor has the sole discretion to restore those rights. The restoration process requires applicants to submit a form, after which the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth reviews the application and makes a recommendation to the Governor, who then decides whether to grant restoration. The applicant in this case, who had never voted due to his conviction as a minor, submitted at least one application for restoration, but the Governor declined to restore his rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed the applicant’s claims, which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The applicant argued that the Governor’s unfettered discretion in restoring voting rights, and the lack of a definite time limit for the process, violated the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Governor and Secretary, finding that the doctrine did not apply because the restoration process determines eligibility to reenter the franchise, rather than regulating the exercise of an existing right.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Virginia’s discretionary system for restoring voting rights, which is rooted in the executive clemency power, does not facially violate the First Amendment’s unfettered-discretion doctrine. The court reasoned that the clemency power is fundamentally different from a licensing scheme subject to First Amendment prior restraint analysis, and that judicial review of such executive discretion is limited to narrow circumstances not present here. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Youngkin" on Justia Law