Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff previously worked for the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). As part of an internal investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct, SUB restricted Plaintiff from speaking with potential witnesses and other SUB employees regarding the subject of the investigation while it was underway. Plaintiff sued SUB, certain SUB employees, and SUB’s retained counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the investigation-related speech restrictions violated the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiff appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The panel held that the communication restriction complained of by Plaintiff did not violate the First Amendment because it did not limit Plaintiff’s ability to speak about matters of public concern. Nothing in Defendants’ instructions barred him from speaking about any alleged mismanagement at the Springfield Utility Board or other topics that would potentially relate to a matter of public concern. Rather, the restrictions merely barred him from personally discussing his own alleged violation of Springfield Utility Board policies—a matter of private, personal concern—with potential witnesses or fellow Springfield Utility Board employees. View "TODD ROBERTS V. SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were employees of VMSB’s restaurant. They argue that VMSB failed to meet its minimum wage and overtime pay obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and comparable Florida laws. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged three counts, and both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs moved the district court to approve the settlement and to “direct the clerk to dismiss Count III” with prejudice. The district court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and entered judgment for VMSB on Counts I and II. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding Counts I and II.   The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides only for the dismissal of an entire action. Any attempt to use this rule to dismiss a single claim, or anything less than the entire action, will be invalid—just like it would be under Rule 41(a)(1). Because the parties here attempted to use Rule 41(a) to dismiss a single count and not an entire lawsuit, a final judgment was never rendered. Accordingly, the court found that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. View "Israel Rosell, et al. v. VMSB, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals on a survival claim brought by the estate of Clark Davis against United Rentals North America, Inc., rendered a take nothing judgment on this claim, and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on the remaining claims, holding that racial considerations impermissibly tainted the selection of the jury in the underlying trial.During jury selection, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that "the African-American female was the most favorable juror in this case," and this announced preference was consistent with Plaintiffs' peremptory strikes. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs, and the district court awarded $5 million to Davis's estate. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a new trial was required because counsel stated a racial preference in jury selection, the peremptory strikes were consistent with that preference, and the district court did not remedy the issue. View "United Rentals North America, Inc. v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this direct appeal brought by the Iowa Department of Human Services (HDS) from a district court ruling requiring Iowa's Medicaid program to pay for sex reassignment surgery for two transgender adults and affirmed the denial of fees on cross-appeal, holding that the appeal was moot.Petitioners, adult transgender Iowans who were denied preauthorization for sex reassignment surgeries through the Medicaid program, appealed their managed care organization's denial of coverage to DHS. DHS affirmed the denials. The district court reversed, concluding that Iowa Code 216.7(3), an amendment to the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) violated the guarantee of equal protection under the Iowa Constitution. DHS appealed, but, thereafter, agreed to pay for Petitioners' surgeries. The Supreme Court dismissed the direct appeal as moot and affirmed the district court's order denying any fee award, holding that the court erred in denying Petitioners' request for attorney fees. View "Vasquez v. Iowa Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of William Marsh Rice University d/b/a Rice University (hereinafter, “Rice” or “the University”) dismissing his claims under Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 (“Title IX”) as well as his state law breach-of-contract claims.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim but reversed its summary judgment in favor of the University with respect to Plaintiff’s Title IX claims and remanded. The court explained that Plaintiff has not alleged any breaches of the University’s Code or associated policies. Moreover, as the district court accurately observed in evaluating Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim, the Code expressly provides that “[t]he procedures used . . . by SJP are not those used in court cases and are not intended to create contractual rights[.]” In the absence of contractual rights and the University’s intent to be bound, the court held that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim. Moreover, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the University on the grounds that the record clearly indicates that material fact issues remain in dispute as to whether Plaintiff has successfully advanced a Title IX claim against the University. View "Doe v. William Marsh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging sexual abuse by Defendant, a pastor at a church Plaintiff attended more than thirty years ago. A magistrate judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In response, Plaintiff submitted a filing seeking to voluntarily dismiss the case and to receive a refund of his court fees. The district court, rather than treating Plaintiff’s filing as a self-executing notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 referred the matter to the magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that Plaintiff’s requests be denied. The magistrate judge made that recommendation in an attempt to further the purposes of the “three-strikes provision” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and this appeal followed.  Plaintiff, represented by counsel on appeal, contends that the district court erred by invoking the PLRA’s purposes to trump his clear right to voluntarily dismiss the action under Rule 41.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment. The court explained that it found no language in the PLRA purporting to limit or condition a plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss an action “without a court order” under Rule 41(a) in the prisoner-litigation context. Plaintiff acted within the bounds of Rule 41(a) by filing a notice of dismissal before Defendant responded. That notice was effective immediately upon filing and deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case. View "Jason Elliott Smith v. Delwyn Gerald Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of criminal appeals reversing Defendant's convictions and reinstated the judgments of the trial court, holding that the intermediate court erred when it stated that an involuntary confession claim is "inextricably linked" to a Miranda waiver claim such that the two inquiries can be considered together.Defendant, a juvenile at the time of the offenses, was convicted of aggravated robbery, premeditated first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and theft of property valued at over $10,000. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. On appeal, the court of criminal appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress pretrial statement to detectives, concluding that the statement was not voluntary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's overall statement was voluntary, and his Miranda waiver was both knowing and voluntary; and (2) the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

In 2019, Susan Christie filed suit against Wayne State University, asserting age and disability discrimination under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (the ELCRA); and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (the PWDCRA). Christie took a medical leave of absence in February 2017 and returned to work on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff alleged that after her return to work, her supervisors questioned her about her age, asked her when she intended to retire, and had conversations with others in her presence regarding the ages of employees. Plaintiff received a negative job-performance review on September 22, 2017, allegedly the first negative review she had ever received, and defendant terminated her from her job on November 27, 2017. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that MCL 600.6431(1) of the Court of Claims Act (the COCA), required plaintiff to file either a verified complaint with the Court of Claims or notice of intent to file suit with the Court of Claims within one year of the accrual of her claim; defendant maintained plaintiff’s claim was barred by governmental immunity because she failed to do either. The court denied the motion, concluding that MCL 600.6431(1) did not preclude plaintiff from filing her claim in the circuit court because the COCA notice requirements only applied to claims litigated in the Court of Claims. Defendant appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals. While the Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal as a matter of right, it treated the appeal as though leave had been granted and affirmed the trial court’s order in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, finding the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment. View "Christie v. Wayne State University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court suppressing statements made by Defendant during the execution of a search warrant, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Defendant's statements to a law enforcement officer during the execution of a search warrant were involuntarily made.Defendant was indicted for one count each of rape in the third degree and sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement, arguing that his statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1996). The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that Defendant's statements were involuntarily made under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on a review of the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court erred in concluding that Defendant's statements to law enforcement were involuntarily made. View "State v. Ghebre" on Justia Law

Defendants hired Plaintiff as a nanny. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment. They hoped Plaintiff would release potential claims against them in exchange for a severance payment. Defendants asked a friend (who ran a nanny placement service and had helped hire Plaintiff) to propose this to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not sign the proposed severance agreement. Instead, she brought wage-and-hour claims against Defendants. Following discovery, Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim for defamation. She based her defamation claim on statements Defendants made to the intermediary during the negotiations over severance. Defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. They argued that the allegedly defamatory statements were made in anticipation of litigation. They moved to strike not only the new defamation allegations but also the entire complaint. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion and required the Defendants to pay some of Plaintiff’s attorney fees.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Defendants did not show that Plaintiff’s defamation claim was based on activity protected by the anti-SLAPP law. The court explained that Defendants appealed to the entire SAC. They did so even after the trial court correctly found the motion frivolous as to most of Plaintiff’s SAC. Defendants informed the trial court that “the appeal is going to be of every cause of action.” Defendants were thereby able to obtain a full stay of the action in the trial court, even though the appeal was frivolous as to most of the action. If Defendants had appealed as to only the defamation cause of action, Plaintiff might have had the opportunity to argue for permission to continue discovery. View "Nirschl v. Schiller" on Justia Law