Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of carrying a firearm without a license and his sentence of eighteen months in a house of correction, holding that the Commonwealth did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and Defendant did not waive this issue.In a pretrial motion, Defendant filed a motion to suppress based on the alleged inadequacy of the Miranda warnings provided to him in Spanish. The motion judge denied the motion after finding that Defendant was given "the full complement of Miranda warnings" in English and in Spanish. After he was convicted and the convictions were affirmed on appeal Defendant filed a postconviction motion for a new trial, which the motion judge denied following a hearing. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the conviction, holding (1) Defendant did not waive the issue of whether Miranda warnings were properly given to him in Spanish; and (2) the admission of Defendant's post arrest statements was error. View "Commonwealth v. Delossantos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her employer Houston Independent School District (“HISD”), for retaliation and age discrimination. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim. Her amended complaint was also dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. To begin, the court explained that by applying amended Rule 3(c), it concludes that it has jurisdiction to review the final judgment. Under the new rule, a notice of appeal “encompasses the final judgment” if it designates “an order described in Rule 4(a)(4)(A).” Further, the court found that the district court applied the correct standard when assessing whether Plaintiff adequately pled sufficient facts to establish all the elements of her claims. Moreover, Plaintiff’s amended complaint brings three categories of claims. The first is a retaliation claim pursuant to Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and Section 21.055 of the Texas Labor Code. To state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) she was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse employment action.” Here, the court found that Plaintiff’s complaint is hard to understand, and parts of it fail even to establish the adverse action prong. For example, the complaint offers no specifics about the “forms of retaliation, harassment, taunting, and badgering” to which Plaintiff was allegedly subjected. It also provides little to nothing about what the positions actually were and what the ages and qualifications were of those who were given promotions. View "Norsworthy v. Houston Indep Sch Dist" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court requiring Broadwater County to provide to Helena Independent Record (IR) or other interested persons redacted videographer and documentation records pertaining to Jason Ellsworth's May 2021 stop by and encounter with a Montana Highway Patrol officer, holding that there was no error.Ellsworth pleaded guilty to an obstructing a peace officer. Thereafter, a reporter with the IR requested from Broadwater County a copy of Ellsworth's investigative file. Petitioner, a county attorney, determined that the file contained confidential criminal justice information and filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling to clarify and enforce the rights of recovery to redacted confidential criminal justice information (CCJI) contained in the file. Petitioner also filed a separate motion for leave to deposit the investigative file under seal. The district court (1) concluded that Ellsworth's criminal case had been completed and that the declaratory action was ripe for decision; and (2) held that Ellsworth's privacy rights outweighed the public's right to know regarding certain information irrelevant to the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Ellsworth was given a proper opportunity to participate, and his due process right was not infringed regarding the release of the CCJI. View "Broadwater Co. v. Release of Confidential Criminal Justice Information" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree statutory sodomy, incest, first-degree child molestation, and one count of first-degree attempted rape, holding that the circuit court's jury instructions did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous verdict.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial included multiple allegations of abuse related to each count of sexual misconduct and that five separate verdict directors violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions violated Defendant's right to a unanimous verdict. View "State v. Hamby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court overruling Appellants' motion to vacate the court's order appointing a receiver for Appellants, holding that the petition filed by Patriots Bank seeking the appointment of a receiver pursuant to the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (MCRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 515.500-515.665, did not violate due process.Bank entered into lending relationships with Appellants, all of which defaulted. Bank filed a petition seeking the appointment of a receiver for Appellants. The circuit court entered the receiver order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Bank complied with the plain language of the MCRA's notice requirement; (2) the application of the MCRA to Appellants' case did not violate the due process protections under either the state or federal constitutions; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellants' motion to vacate the receiver order; and (4) the receiver order did not violate the MCRA. View "Black River Motel, LLC v. Patriots Bank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of possessing a controlled substance, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 579.015.1, and unlawfully using a weapon while in possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 571.030.1, holding that Defendant's convictions did not infringe upon his right to be free from double jeopardy.On appeal, Defendant argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections because they arose from the same conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no double jeopardy violation existed because the plain language of the states combined with fundamental principles of statutory interpretation clearly demonstrated the legislature's intent to authorize multiple punishments under sections 579.015 and 571.030.1(11). View "State v. Onyejiaka" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured psychology professor at George Mason University (GMU), appealed the district court’s dismissal of his Title IX, procedural due process, and First Amendment claims against GMU and other defendants sued after he was disciplined for creating a hostile educational environment that amounted to sexual harassment.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s erroneous-outcome claim. Such a claim requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that (1) he was subjected to a procedurally flawed or otherwise flawed proceeding; (2) which led to an adverse and erroneous outcome; and (3) involved particular circumstances that suggest ‘gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding. Here, Plaintiff does not connect these generalized pressures to his case in a way that creates a reasonable inference that anti-male bias-motivated GMU’s finding that he sexually harassed his students. Thus, as the district court explained, Plaintiff “has provided no basis from which to infer the existence of bias in his specific proceeding.” Further, Plaintiff’s “allegations of selective enforcement are not supported by any well-pled facts that exist independent of his legal conclusions.” Finally, the court explained that while Plaintiff’s research, publishing, and teaching about sex may qualify as matters of public concern, his contested speech veered well outside his teaching and scholarship into areas of private, personal interest. View "Todd Kashdan v. George Mason University" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of Federal contractor employees and Federal employees working for the Department of Energy, challenged two Executive Orders, Executive Orders 14,042 and 14,043 (EOs), issued in September 2021. 1 Those EOs mandated COVID-19 vaccination for Federal contractor employees and Federal employees, respectively. They also provided for legally required medical or religious exemptions. Plaintiffs challenged the EOs as ultra vires exercises of presidential power in violation of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Procurement Act), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Procurement Policy Act), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), the major questions doctrine, and general constitutional federalism constraints. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to address their allegedly “imminent and wrongful terminations” for failure to comply with the vaccination requirements. The district court held that Plaintiffs who had submitted religious and medical exemptions but who had not yet completed the exemption request process did not have claims ripe for adjudication. The district court then dismissed the operative Second Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and without leave to amend.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part. The panel concluded that the case was moot as to all non-RFRA claims. The vaccine mandate exemption processes that the Plaintiffs challenged were premised on the revoked EOs. The panel held that it could not provide relief from EOs and exemption processes that no longer exist. Accordingly, no live controversy remained between the parties. The panel further concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages under RFRA were precluded by sovereign immunity. View "DAVID DONOVAN, ET AL V. BRIAN VANCE" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that when he was a first-year student-athlete at the University of Arizona, his teammates subjected him to frequent “sexual and homophobic bullying” because they perceived him to be gay. He claims that the Arizona Board of Regents and the University of Arizona (“University Defendants”) were deliberately indifferent to his claims of sexual harassment and that they retaliated against him in violation of Title IX. He also brings claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against two of his coaches (collectively, “Defendant Coaches”). Finally, he sought punitive damages against the Defendant Coaches. The district court dismissed the action.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action. The panel held that Title IX bars sexual harassment on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. The panel held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex-based discrimination under Title IX. The panel held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged the first, third, and fourth elements of his Title IX harassment claim, but the operative complaint failed to allege a deprivation of educational opportunity. The panel affirmed the dismissal of the harassment claim, vacated the portion of the district court’s order denying leave to amend, and remanded for the district court to consider Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint again, should he renew that request before the district court. The panel held that the operative complaint sufficiently alleged that Plaintiff suffered harassment on the basis of perceived sexual orientation and that Defendants retaliated against him when they failed to investigate his accusations adequately. View "MICHAEL GRABOWSKI V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL" on Justia Law

Appellant complaint, filed in 2021, repeated the claims she had made against the defendants in her 2018 complaint. The district court dismissed her 2018 complaint because the D.C. statutory limitations period had run. In both of her complaints Appellant alleged that in 2004, when she was 14 years old and a student at a KIPP charter school in the District of Columbia, one of her teachers began having sexual relations with her. She further alleged that this man continued to abuse her after she enrolled in another school and that they began living together in Maryland. She claimed that she ended her relationship with him in 2009. At issue is whether, as the district court ruled, res judicata barred Appellant’s second action.   The DC Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that the District of Columbia’s Sexual Abuse Statute of Limitations Amendment Act went into effect on May 3, 2019. The new and expanded limitations period extends to “the date the victim attains the age of 40 years, or 5 years from when the victim knew, or reasonably should have known, of any act constituting sexual abuse, whichever is later.” Here, the court held that the district court did not decide whether the old or the new D.C. statute of limitations applied to several of Appellant’s claims. The court wrote that the district court also concluded that its interpretation of the new Act depended on constitutional avoidance, which the DC Circuit determined to be inapplicable. View "Shanique Perez v. Kipp DC Supporting Corporation" on Justia Law