Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

John Labriola, a media aide for the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, wrote an inflammatory opinion piece criticizing the Equality Act, using derogatory language towards the LGBT community. Following public backlash and internal complaints, the County suspended him without pay, mandated anti-discrimination training, and eventually terminated him for not completing the training.Labriola sued Miami-Dade County in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, compelled speech, and that the County's anti-discrimination policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County on all counts, applying the Pickering-Connick test to Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims, and ruling that his free-press claim was invalid because he was not a journalist.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims failed the Pickering-Connick balancing test, as his speech impeded the County's ability to perform its duties efficiently and disrupted workplace harmony. The court also rejected Labriola's free-press claim, noting that even though the district court erred in stating he couldn't bring the claim as a non-journalist, his claim failed on the merits. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Labriola's compelled speech claim, as the required training did not compel him to express views he disagreed with. Lastly, the court dismissed Labriola's overbreadth challenge to the County's anti-discrimination policy, as he failed to demonstrate that the policy was substantially overbroad.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Miami-Dade County on all counts. View "Labriola v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York implemented a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19, with exemptions for religious or medical reasons. Lori Gardner-Alfred and Jeanette Diaz, employees of the Federal Reserve, applied for religious exemptions, claiming that the vaccine conflicted with their religious beliefs. The Federal Reserve denied their requests and subsequently terminated their employment for non-compliance with the vaccination policy. Gardner-Alfred and Diaz filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Federal Reserve's actions violated their religious liberties under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and various federal statutes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the Federal Reserve on all federal claims. The court found no genuine dispute of fact regarding the sincerity of Gardner-Alfred's religious objections and concluded that the vaccination policy did not conflict with Diaz's professed religious beliefs. Additionally, the district court imposed discovery sanctions on Gardner-Alfred and Diaz for repeatedly neglecting their discovery obligations, withholding relevant documents, and violating court orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on Gardner-Alfred's claims, agreeing that she failed to provide sufficient evidence of sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on Diaz's claims, finding that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the sincerity of her religious beliefs and whether the vaccination policy burdened those beliefs. The court also upheld the district court's imposition of discovery sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York" on Justia Law

Officer Alexandra Weaver took a fourteen-year-old child, J.M., from her home during a child welfare investigation. The child and her parents sued, claiming Weaver searched the apartment and seized the child in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Weaver appealed the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity and denied summary judgment on three claims: the Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search of the apartment, J.M.’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure, and the Fourteenth Amendment claim for procedural due process. Weaver then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances, and no other exception applied. The court also found that J.M. was seized without a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances, violating her Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the court held that the procedural due process claim was valid because J.M. was seized without a court order or exigent circumstances, and this violation was clearly established by precedent.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity on any of the claims and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. View "McMurry v. Weaver" on Justia Law

Matthew Mungai, a Black man of Kenyan origin, sued the University of Minnesota, alleging racial discrimination and harassment while he was a student. He claimed violations under Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), the Fourteenth Amendment, and negligence. Mungai detailed several incidents of racial harassment by students and staff over three years, including derogatory comments and threats. He reported some incidents to university staff and the Student Conflict Resolution Center (SCRC).The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Mungai's claims, finding that his amended complaint failed to state a claim. Mungai appealed, focusing on his Title VI claim and challenging the dismissal with prejudice of his Title VI, MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court adopted the deliberate indifference standard for third-party harassment claims under Title VI, similar to Title IX. To establish liability, Mungai needed to show that the University was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment by individuals under its control. The court found that Mungai's allegations did not plausibly show that he reported the incidents to an appropriate person with authority to take corrective action. Additionally, the court found that Mungai did not provide sufficient facts to establish that the University acted with deliberate indifference.The court also upheld the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Mungai's MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims. The MHRA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Fourteenth Amendment claim could not be brought directly, and the University was not a "person" under § 1983.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Mungai v. University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Luis Martinez Jr. died in February 2021, and his body was taken by the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office (WCMEO). Despite identifying his next of kin, the WCMEO did not contact them. The family hired a social worker who located Luis Jr.'s body in April 2021, by which time it was severely decomposed and had to be cremated. The family sued Wayne County and various officials under § 1983 for a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violation, a Monell liability claim, and state-law claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found that the alleged conduct did not constitute a clearly established constitutional violation and that the Monell claim failed due to a lack of supporting facts. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the defendants' conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, as existing precedent did not address delayed notification leading to natural decomposition. The court also found that the Monell claim failed because the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to show a policy or custom of unconstitutional conduct or a failure to train. The court concluded that without a clearly established constitutional violation, the Monell claim could not succeed. View "Martinez v. Wayne Cnty., Mich." on Justia Law

In 2017, the Saginaw County Sheriff’s Office seized fourteen firearms during a domestic-violence investigation involving Benjamin Heinrich. Heinrich's uncle, Gerald Novak, and distant cousin, Adam Wenzel, claimed ownership of the firearms and sought their return. Sheriff William Federspiel refused to return the firearms, arguing that Novak and Wenzel had not proven ownership. Novak and Wenzel then sued Federspiel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan law, asserting various federal constitutional and state claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to Federspiel on all claims and denied Novak and Wenzel’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court found that qualified immunity protected Federspiel in his personal capacity and that Novak and Wenzel had not established constitutional violations. It also held that Michigan law does not recognize a cause of action to sue municipal officials for constitutional torts and that Novak and Wenzel could not establish the elements of claim and delivery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Federspiel on the individual-capacity takings claims, procedural-due-process claims, substantive-due-process claims, Fourth Amendment claims, and inverse-condemnation claims. However, it vacated the grant of summary judgment on the official-capacity and injunctive-relief takings claims, official-capacity Second Amendment claims, and the claim-and-delivery action. The court remanded these claims for further proceedings, noting that Novak and Wenzel’s affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact regarding ownership of the firearms, and that the district court should address whether Federspiel’s actions were consistent with historical firearm regulation. View "Novak v. Federspiel" on Justia Law

Karyn Stanley, a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, since 1999, was forced to retire in 2018 due to a disability. When she was hired, the City provided health insurance until age 65 for retirees with 25 years of service or those who retired due to disability. In 2003, the City revised its policy, limiting health insurance to 24 months for those retiring due to disability. Stanley, who retired under the revised policy, received only 24 months of health insurance.Stanley sued the City, alleging that the revised policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against those who retire due to disability. The district court dismissed her ADA claim, stating that the alleged discrimination occurred after her retirement, making her not a "qualified individual" under Title I of the ADA, as she no longer held or sought a job with the City. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that to prevail under §12112(a) of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove that they held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of the alleged discrimination. The Court concluded that the ADA's protections do not extend to retirees who neither hold nor seek a job. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit was affirmed, upholding the dismissal of Stanley's ADA claim. View "Stanley v. City of Stanford" on Justia Law

In this case, inmate Kyle Richards alleged that Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, sexually harassed him and other inmates. Richards also claimed that Perttu destroyed his grievance documents and retaliated against him for attempting to file them. Richards sued Perttu under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his First Amendment right to file grievances. Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards had failed to exhaust available grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Magistrate Judge found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Richards was excused from exhausting his claims due to Perttu's interference and held an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Richards's witnesses lacked credibility and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The District Court adopted this recommendation. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when the resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff's substantive case.The Supreme Court of the United States held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that factual disputes regarding legal claims go to the jury. The PLRA is silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, and this silence indicates that the usual practice should be followed. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. View "Perttu v. Richards" on Justia Law

Plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, who frequently posts videos of his interactions with police on YouTube, challenged a New York City Police Department (NYPD) policy that prohibits video recording inside police facilities. Reyes, who had been arrested twice for recording inside police stationhouses, argued that the policy violated his rights under the First Amendment and the New York State and New York City Right to Record Acts (RTRAs). He sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from enforcing the policy and to remove signs stating the policy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Reyes a preliminary injunction based on his state and local law claims, despite finding that he was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim. The court concluded that Reyes demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his RTRAs claims, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored an injunction.The City of New York appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state and local claims and in finding that Reyes met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction or its determination of irreparable harm. However, the court noted that the resolution of whether Reyes is likely to succeed on the merits and whether the public interest favors an injunction depends on the interpretation of the RTRAs.Given the lack of clear guidance from New York courts on whether the RTRAs afford a right to record inside police stationhouses, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does either N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p or N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-189 afford individuals the right to video record law enforcement activities inside public facilities, specifically inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses, notwithstanding the NYPD policy forbidding such recording? The decision on the appeal is reserved pending the response from the New York Court of Appeals. View "Reyes v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the ward map adopted by the Jersey City Ward Commission following the 2020 federal census. The Commission found a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards, which exceeded the maximum allowed by the Municipal Ward Law (MWL). The Commission created a new map with a 1.8% deviation and revised the boundaries of all six wards. Plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, argued that the new map failed to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement and violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution. They also claimed a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).The trial court concluded that the Commission’s map created sufficiently compact wards under the MWL and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the MWL claims, remanding for factfinding on whether the Commission’s determination of compactness had a rational basis. It affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the MWL, equal protection, and NJCRA claims. The Court held that the Commission’s map was a proper exercise of its discretion under the MWL. It found that the Commission was not required to use mathematical measures of compactness or consider communities of interest in its determination. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s remand for additional factfinding, reinstating the trial court’s judgment on the MWL claim. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims, concluding that the Commission’s compliance with the MWL negated the equal protection claim and that no statutory or constitutional violation occurred to support the NJCRA claim. View "Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission" on Justia Law