Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

An Iranian citizen, living in the United States, held a credit card account with a large financial institution. Due to United States sanctions against Iran, federal regulations prohibit U.S. banks from providing services to accounts of individuals ordinarily resident in Iran, unless those individuals are not located in Iran. The bank had a compliance policy requiring account holders from such sanctioned countries to regularly provide documents showing they were not residing in those countries. The plaintiff, subject to this policy, submitted various documents as proof of U.S. residency. After the bank mistakenly treated one of his residency documents as temporary rather than permanent, it closed his account when he failed to submit additional documentation.The plaintiff sued in state court, alleging violations of federal and state anti-discrimination and consumer protection statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The defendant bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the bank on all claims except for an ECOA notice claim and a related UCL claim, both of which the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed. The plaintiff then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s liability shield provision immunizes the bank from liability for good faith actions taken in connection with compliance with sanctions regulations, even if such actions are not strictly compelled by the regulations. The court found that the bank’s policy was consistent with federal guidance and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the bank’s good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the bank. View "NIA V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A." on Justia Law

A black-owned construction company was not invited to bid as general contractor on a major Boston public housing redevelopment project after participating in pre-construction work. Years earlier, the developer had called the company’s president to discuss possible involvement, but the parties disputed what promises, if any, were made during that conversation. The construction company performed pre-construction work and was later selected as general contractor for the first phase (Camden), but after performance and communication issues arose during that project, the developer chose a different, white-owned company for the second phase (Lenox). The construction company did not protest at the time but later sued, alleging breach of contract, quasi-contract, violation of Massachusetts consumer protection law, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.The matter was first brought in Massachusetts state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on federal question jurisdiction. After discovery, the developer moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the developer, finding no enforceable contract or promise had been made regarding the Lenox phase, that the quasi-contract and Chapter 93A claims failed as derivative, and that there was insufficient evidence of racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The First Circuit held that the summary judgment record did not contain evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an enforceable implied-in-fact contract or a promise sufficient for promissory estoppel. It further held that the plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext or discriminatory intent under § 1981, given the legitimate business reasons cited for the company’s exclusion. Thus, summary judgment on all claims was proper. View "John B. Cruz Construction Co. v. Beacon Communities Corp." on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law

Several individuals who allegedly owed debts to Kentucky public institutions—either for medical services at the University of Kentucky or for educational services at the University of Kentucky, Morehead State University, or the Kentucky Community & Technical College System—challenged the referral of their debts to the Kentucky Department of Revenue for collection. The plaintiffs argued that the statutes used to justify these referrals did not apply to their debts and that the Department unlawfully collected the debts, sometimes without prior court judgments or adequate notice. The Department used its tax collection powers, including garnishments and liens, to recover these debts, and in some cases, added interest and collection fees.In the Franklin Circuit Court, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and monetary relief, including refunds of funds collected. The Circuit Court ruled that the Department was not authorized by statute to collect these debts and held that sovereign immunity did not protect the defendants from the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also certified the medical debt case as a class action. The Court of Appeals reviewed these interlocutory appeals and held that while sovereign immunity did not bar claims for purely declaratory relief, it did bar all claims for monetary relief, including those disguised as declaratory relief.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that sovereign immunity does not bar claims for purely declaratory relief or for a refund of funds that were never due to the state, nor does it bar constitutional takings claims. However, the court held that sovereign immunity does bar claims for a refund of funds that were actually due to the state, even if those funds were unlawfully or improperly collected. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to determine which funds, if any, were never due to the state and thus subject to refund. The court also found that statutory changes rendered prospective declaratory relief in the medical debt case moot, but not retrospective relief. View "LONG V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

Sara Watts, an African American woman, sued her former homeowners’ association, Joggers Run Property Owners Association (HOA), alleging racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Civil Rights Act. Watts claimed the HOA interfered with her property enjoyment through unwarranted citations, restricted access to amenities, and discriminatory treatment as a former HOA board member. She cited provisions from the FHA (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b), 3617) and the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Watts' claims, ruling that the FHA did not cover discriminatory conduct occurring after the purchase of her home and that Watts failed to specify the contractual terms the HOA allegedly violated. The court found her allegations insufficient to support claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Watts presented plausible claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act. It found that the FHA's language is broad and inclusive, prohibiting a wide range of discriminatory conduct related to housing. The court concluded that the HOA's actions, including restricted access to amenities and selective enforcement of rules, fell within the scope of the FHA. The court also determined that Watts sufficiently alleged intentional racial discrimination causing contractual injury under Section 1981 and that the HOA's actions violated her right to use property on an equal basis with White citizens under Section 1982.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Watts v. Joggers Run Property Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law

John Doe was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for an offense in Arlington County, Virginia, in 2014 and was committed to a state hospital in 2015. After his first job offer was rescinded due to his arrest and commitment, he changed his legal name and moved to Texas in 2020. In 2022, he was arrested based on a Virginia bench warrant for failure to appear but was released when Virginia declined extradition. In 2023, Doe received a job offer from Charter Communications, pending a background check by HireRight. HireRight reported that Doe had a criminal record and an active warrant, leading Charter to rescind the job offer.Doe filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Charter, HireRight, and Paul Ferguson, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Doe’s claims, finding that his FCRA claim against Charter was barred as there is no private right of action against users of consumer reports, and his Fourteenth Amendment claim against Ferguson was duplicative of a previously litigated case in Virginia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Doe’s constitutional claims against Ferguson were duplicative and therefore frivolous. It also upheld the dismissal of Doe’s FCRA claim against Charter, interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(h)(8) to bar private enforcement of section 1681m in its entirety. The court found that Doe’s FCRA claim against HireRight and ADA claim against Charter were based on the allegation that the warrant was unlawful or inaccurate, which had already been addressed in the Virginia litigation. View "Doe v. Charter Communications" on Justia Law

Eight Black homeowners in New York City sued a lending institution and affiliated entities, alleging that the lender violated federal, state, and city antidiscrimination laws. They claimed the lender made mortgage refinancing loans with high default interest rates to Black and Latino individuals in poor neighborhoods who had no income, no assets, and low credit scores but high equity in their homes, and then foreclosed on the loans when the individuals defaulted. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment awarding four homeowners $722,044 in compensatory damages and four others nominal damages.The lender appealed, arguing that the district court erred in three ways: by finding the homeowners' claims timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling and the discovery rule of accrual, in its instructions to the jury on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination, and in holding that a release-of-claims provision in a loan modification agreement signed by two homeowners was unenforceable as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the homeowners' claims were timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling. The court also found no error in the district court's instructions to the jury on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination. Finally, the court agreed that the release-of-claims provision in the loan modification agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Absolute Essence LLC sought to enter the medical marijuana market in Arkansas but was unable to secure a license. The company invested over a million dollars in the application process, including finding a location and addressing zoning issues. The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission outsourced the review process to Public Consulting Group, Inc., which scored 197 applications in two weeks. Absolute Essence received a low score and alleged that the scoring process was manipulated, with conflicts of interest among the scorers favoring larger, established players and resulting in racial disparities in license awards.The case was initially filed in state court, alleging tortious interference, fraud, racial discrimination, and civil conspiracy. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, which dismissed the case for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court found that Absolute Essence's tortious interference claim failed because it did not establish a precise business expectancy with a specific third party. The fraud claim was dismissed due to a lack of justifiable reliance, as the company’s actions predated the involvement of the outside scorers. The race-discrimination claims were dismissed for failing to allege intentional discrimination, as the complaint only suggested a disparate impact without sufficient factual support. Finally, the civil conspiracy claim was dismissed because it could not stand without an underlying tort.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Absolute Essence did not plead enough facts to support any of its claims. View "Absolute Essence LLC v. Public Consulting Group LLC" on Justia Law

Ryan Haygood, a dentist in Louisiana, faced an investigation by the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, which led to the revocation of his dental license in 2010. Haygood alleged that competing dentists conspired with Board members to drive him out of business by fabricating complaints and manipulating the Board's proceedings. In 2012, a Louisiana appellate court vacated the Board's revocation of Haygood's license, citing due process violations. Haygood then entered a consent decree with the Board, allowing him to keep his license.Haygood filed a civil action in state court in 2011, alleging due process violations and unfair competition. In 2013, he filed a similar federal lawsuit, claiming violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA). The federal district court dismissed the federal complaint, ruling that the § 1983 claim was time-barred and the LUTPA claim was not plausible. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants, deeming both claims frivolous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to award attorney’s fees for the frivolous § 1983 claim, agreeing that it was clearly time-barred. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred in calculating the fee amount. The district court had properly calculated $98,666.50 for the defendants' private attorneys but improperly awarded $11,594.66 for the Louisiana Attorney General’s office without using the lodestar method. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit remitted the fee award to $98,666.50 while affirming the decision to award fees. View "Haygood v. Morrison" on Justia Law