Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

While working an IT position at Enterprise Services LLC, Plaintiff said he was discriminated against because he has disability—an arthritic big toe. The company says the issues arose because Plaintiff didn’t work well with others, and actually, didn’t work much at all. Plaintiff says the issues arose because of his alleged disability. After he was fired, he brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act asserting that Enterprise Services discriminated against him because of his toe and retaliated against him for seeking toe-related accommodations. For the retaliation claim, the district court held that Enterprise Services’ only potentially retaliatory act was firing Plaintiff and allowed him to take that claim to trial. But Enterprise Services moved to strike Plaintiff’s jury-trial demand. The district court granted the motion. Following the bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Enterprise Services on the remaining claim because Plaintiff failed to prove he was fired because he asked for disability accommodations.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. First, while the district court did cite an outdated EEOC regulation when determining he is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA, he is not disabled under any reasonable reading of the ADA. So that disposes of every claim except retaliation. Second, Burlington Northern makes clear that only “significant” harm to an employee constitutes retaliatory adverse action. And only his termination met that threshold. Third, a straightforward reading of Section 1981a(a)(2) shows that an ADA-retaliation plaintiff is not entitled to legal damages and, therefore not guaranteed a jury trial by the Seventh Amendment. View "Jeffrey Israelitt v. Enterprise Services LLC" on Justia Law

This case arises from the September 2017 fatal police shooting of Ruben Galindo Chavez (who used the surname “Galindo”) during an encounter with officers of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department. The action was initiated by plaintiff Azucena Zamorano Aleman — Galindo’s girlfriend and the mother of his child — both as the administrator of Galindo’s estate and in her individual capacity. Plaintiff asserted five causes of actions, including a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on each of the plaintiff’s claims. The court therein determined that — because it was objectively reasonable for Officer Guerra to shoot Galindo, in that Galindo posed an immediate threat to Guerra and others — Guerra is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. For the same reason, the court awarded summary judgment to Guerra and the City on the assault and battery, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Citing a lack of sufficient evidence, the court also awarded summary judgment to the City on the negligent training claim.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment award to the City on the negligent training claim. The court vacated the award of qualified immunity to Officer Guerra on the Fourth Amendment claim, as well as the related summary judgment awards to Guerra and the City on the balance of the state law claims. Rather than directing the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff on any of those claims, the court remanded for further proceedings as to all of them View "Azucena Zamorano Aleman v. City of Charlotte" on Justia Law

Officers shot and killed Brian Quinones-Rosario as he approached officers with the knife drawn. His widow as trustee, sued the officers and their employing municipalities. She alleged an excessive use of force that resulted in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court concluded that the officers did not commit a constitutional violation, and granted judgment for the officers and the municipalities. Plaintiff appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the use of force “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”. Applying those principles, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Quinones, the court concluded that the officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable. The court explained that Quinones-Rosario posed an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers. He aggressively wielded a knife that he refused to drop despite repeated commands to do so. He then charged at the officers with the knife. One officer deployed a non-lethal taser against him, but it had no effect. The officers reasonably believed that Quinones-Rosario posed a serious threat to their safety. The officers fired more rounds when Quinones-Rosario survived the first round of shots and continued to approach the officers with the knife. The court concluded that their actions were a reasonable defensive response under the circumstances. View "Ashley Quinones v. City of Edina, MN" on Justia Law

In 2008, Paris, a small, rural Kenosha County, Wisconsin community, enacted its “Sex Offender Residency Restrictions” ordinance, limiting where certain designated sex offenders could live within the town. The ordinance prohibits designated offenders from living within 6,500 feet of certain protected locations where children are known to congregate and prohibits designated offenders from living within 6,500 feet of any other designated offender Nelson, a former Paris resident and designated offender, was cited for violating the ordinance’s designated offenders restriction. His suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, argued that the ordinance—both facially and as applied—violated his constitutional right to substantive due process and Article I’s prohibition on ex post facto laws.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, in part, summary judgment in favor of Paris, noting that Nelson conceded that the “protected locations” ordinance is rationally related to Paris’s legitimate interest in protecting children. Paris’s restriction prohibiting designated offenders from living within 6,500 feet of protected locations does not violate the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause because it is not “so punitive either in purpose or effect” as to negate Paris’s nonpunitive intent for the restriction. The court remanded the question of Paris’s restriction prohibiting designated offenders from living within 6,500 feet of each other. View "Nelson v. Town of Paris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Caitlyn Williams and Tamara LaRue (together, Parents) of failing to cause their children to attend school on a regular basis in violation of Missouri's compulsory attendance law, holding that Mo. Rev. Stat. 167.031.1 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied in this case.On appeal, Parents argued, among other things, that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that their conduct was a purposeful or knowing violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 167.031.1 and that the children's attendance was not sufficiently "regular" to constitute a statutory violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 167.031.1 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case; and (2) there sufficient evidence to find that Parents knowingly failed to cause their children to attend school on a regular basis after their children were enrolled. View "State v. LaRue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is an immigration attorney whose work often requires international travel. Upon his return from one such trip, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) diverted him to secondary screening after his surname appeared in connection with an investigation involving an arms dealer. DHS seized Plaintiff’s phone, decrypted it, screened the files for privilege, searched the remaining files, and then returned the phone to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued DHS for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed most of Plaintiff’s claims, reasoning that he lacks standing to seek declaratory relief related solely to past events. Next, while the court held that Plaintiff does have standing to seek an injunction requiring DHS to delete the data that it had seized, the court also held that Malik’s constitutional theories have no merit.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that DHS found the cell phone on Plaintiff’s “person” because it was part of the “baggage” that he was carrying with him into the United States. The search easily falls within the “plenary authority” that Congress has granted to the Executive branch. Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiff’s statutory argument therefore fails. Next, the court reasoned that the apparent connection between Plaintiff and “an international arms dealer with known ties to the Dallas area” was plenty to create reasonable suspicion—even if Plaintiff is correct that the connection appears dubious in hindsight. View "Malik v. DHS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss, holding that Defendant's warrantless arrest was unlawful, and therefore, it was error for the district court not to suppress and exclude the evidence discovered as a result of the unlawful search.Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress and dismiss. On appeal, Defendant argued that the underlying arrest was illegal and led directly to the discovery of the incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the district court erred by not suppressing and excluding the evidence at issue. View "State v. Price" on Justia Law

Indiana law allows 13 categories of voters, including “elderly” voters—those 65 or older--to vote by mail. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indiana Election Commission extended absentee-voting privileges to all registered Indiana voters for the June 2020 primary but did not renew that order for the November general election. Indiana voters who were allowed to vote absentee in the primary, but who do not otherwise qualify for absentee voting, unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction requiring Indiana to permit unlimited absentee voting, citing the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Weeks before the 2020 general election, the Seventh Circuit (Tully I) affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs had not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits in light of Supreme Court precedent holding that the right to vote does not include a claimed right to receive absentee ballots.Returning to the district court, the plaintiffs abandoned their Fourteenth Amendment claim. The court concluded that Tully I constituted controlling authority. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on different grounds. Given the circumstances under which Tully I was issued, that decision does not constitute the law of the case and is not binding. Considering the merits anew, the court held that Indiana’s granting the opportunity to vote by mail to elderly voters does not abridge the right to vote of those under 65 and does not violate the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. View "Tully v. Okeson" on Justia Law

In 1994, Keith and his uncle were charged with cocaine trafficking based on information provided by Chatman, a confidential informant. Weeks later, someone shot six of Chatman’s relatives, killing three of them. A survivor identified Keith as his attacker. An Ohio jury convicted Keith of triple homicide and sentenced him to death.Keith has filed four federal habeas petitions; three have claimed “Brady” violations. This petition was filed after Keith received the personnel file for Yezzo, a forensic expert who testified at Keith’s trial that she could confirm that the perpetrator’s car had left a partial license plate imprint of the numbers “043” in the snow, matching the license plate on an Oldsmobile driven by Keith’s girlfriend (Davison) and that the tire tracks matched the tires Davison’s grandfather had purchased for the Oldsmobile—though they did not match the tires actually installed on it when the car was found. Yezzo’s file showed that Yezzo’s supervisors, colleagues, and union representatives had expressed concerns about the reliability of her work, even stating that Yezzo would “stretch the truth.” Keith submitted a new forensic analysis that concluded that the snow impressions were not consistent with the Oldsmobile. Ohio state courts again denied relief.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Keith cannot show that no reasonable juror today would convict him in light of the “evidence as a whole.” The full record contains significant additional evidence of Keith’s guilt. View "Keith v. Hill" on Justia Law

In 2013, Coleman was convicted of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Coleman was sentenced to the then-mandatory term of life imprisonment based on having at least two prior convictions for a “felony drug offense,” section 841(b)(1)(A). The Seventh Circuit affirmed.Coleman’s pro se motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255, asserted that his appointed counsel, Vaupel, was ineffective for failing to inform him of the government’s pretrial 21 U.S.C. 851 Notice of Enhancement, indicating its intention to seek life imprisonment based on his prior Illinois cocaine-related convictions. According to Coleman, had Vaupel shown him this notice, he never would have agreed to go to trial. Vaupel responded that he had repeatedly informed Coleman that he faced a mandatory life sentence and that the government was unwilling to waive the enhancement. Coleman moved to amend his petition to argue that Vaupel was ineffective by failing to argue that Coleman’s convictions did not qualify as “felony drug offenses” because Illinois defined “cocaine” more broadly than federal law. The district court denied Coleman’s section 2255 motion, and his motion to amend as not relating back to his initial pleading and untimely.The Seventh Circuit reversed. The district court must determine whether Vaupel considered a possible categorical challenge to Coleman’s predicate offenses and, if he did consider it, his reasons for not raising it. Coleman has established that he was prejudiced by counsel’s purportedly deficient performance. View "Coleman v. United States" on Justia Law