Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a black male of African descent who had a medical degree from the University of the West Indies, was terminated from his employment with Mount Auburn Hospital while completing the first year of his residency. Plaintiff filed a ten-count complaint against the Hospital and three physicians who supervised his work, asserting employment discrimination and breach of contract, among other claims. The Appeals Court reversed as to the discrimination and breach of contract claims. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgments in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims for employment discrimination and breach of contract, holding that Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment and that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to hear his claims. View "Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for the Town of Camden for thirty-one years prior to being laid off. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the police union and the Town provided for recall of qualified employees based on seniority. During the twelve-month period after Plaintiff was laid off, vacancies opened in the Camden Police Department, but the Town did not recall Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his wife brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the Town had deprived Plaintiff, without due process of law, of his property interest in his right to be recalled. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded. On remand, the district court entered judgment for the Town, concluding that the CBA contained a condition precedent requiring Plaintiff to submit his address and phone number to the Town after his layoff in order to assert his recall rights and that Plaintiff did not submit such information post-layoff. The First Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that the CBA recall provision did not unambiguously create a condition precedent, and therefore, further fact-finding was necessary. View "Clukey v. Town of Camden, Maine" on Justia Law

Duit, an Oklahoma highway contractor, contracted with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (ASHTD) to reconstruct I-30 between Little Rock and Benton. Duit encountered soil conditions that, it alleges, differed materially from information provided by the ASHTD during bidding. Duit’s claims for compensation were denied by the ASHTD, the Arkansas State Claims Commission, and the General Assembly. Duit sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the “in re Young” exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Duit alleged violations of the Federal Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses and sought to “enjoin Defendants from accepting federal aid … until . . . they fully comply with the federally mandated differing site clause.” The court dismissed the FAHA claim because that statute is enforced exclusively by an executive agency, dismissed the due process claim because Duit’s interest in future highway contracts is not a protected property interest and because the state appeals process for claim denials satisfies procedural due process requirements. The court declined to dismiss the equal protection claim, concluding Duit sufficiently alleged that the Commission treated out-of-state-contractor Duit differently from similarly situated in-state contractors without a rational reason. The Eighth Circuit held that Duit lacks standing to bring its equal protection claim and that the court erred in not dismissing that claim. View "Duit Constr. Co. Inc. v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Zastrow appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. 961–1968, and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982. The court concluded that plaintiff has not shown that defendants’ alleged predicate acts amount to or constitute a threat of continuing racketeering activity; even if plaintiff had produced evidence of a pattern of racketeering activity, he has not demonstrated the existence of an enterprise; and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim dressed in civil RICO garb. The court also concluded that because plaintiff has alleged that Mercedes Greenway refused to sell him parts after he testified in support of some clients' discrimination claims, he has stated a claim for retaliation under section 1981. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's RICO claim and his section 1982 claim, but vacated as to the section 1981 claim, remanding for further proceedings. View "Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports Greenway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed a lawsuit against the Narragansett Indian Tribe alleging breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged that the Tribe contractually waived the sovereign immunity that would otherwise have prevented him from bringing this suit outside the tribal courts. The district court denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The Tribe did not appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. Instead, the Tribe filed an untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion. The Tribe subsequently filed a notice purporting to appeal from both the denial of the motion to dismiss and the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) motion. A prior duty panel of the First Circuit dismissed as untimely any appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss. The First Circuit subsequently denied interlocutory review of the order denying its motion to reconsider, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal because the denial of the Tribe’s untimely 59(e) motion did not qualify as a collateral order that the Court may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court. View "Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a physician, filed an employment discrimination action against the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP) in state court. CEP removed the suit to federal court. Prior to trial, the parties agreed in writing to settle the case. The settlement agreement included a provision that Plaintiff waive his rights to employment with CEP or at any facility that CEP may own or with which it may contract in the future. Plaintiff refused to execute the written agreement and attempted to have it set aside. The district court ultimately ordered that the settlement be enforced and dismissed the case, concluding that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600, which provides that a contract is void if it restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, did not apply because the no-employment provision in the settlement agreement did not constitute a covenant not to compete. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the parties’ dispute regarding whether the no-employment provision voided the settlement agreement was ripe for review under the traditional ripeness standard; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the settlement agreement from the ambit of 16600 solely on the ground that it did not constitute a covenant not to compete. Remanded. View "Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Group" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Town of Middletown issued an invitation for bids on a drainage improvement project. Two contractors submitted bids, including HK&S Construction Holding Corp., which provided the lowest bid. Woodard & Curran, Inc. recommended against awarding HK&S the project and in favor of negotiating a contract with the second bidder. The town counsel concluded that HK&S’s bid was non-responsive and awarded the contract to the second bidder. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Town and Woodard & Curran alleging, among other claims, that the Town violated state and local law when it denied the contract award for the project. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in disposing of HK&S’s claims against the Town in summary judgment where HK&S failed to submit a responsive bid; and (2) HK&S’s claim of negligence against Woodard & Curran also failed. View "HK&S Constr. Holding Corp. v. Dible" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a life insurance agent with the New Life Insurance Company for more than forty years. In 2009, Plaintiff was informed that his agent contract would be terminated. In 2012 and 2014, Plaintiff filed two separate suits against New York Life, alleging, in addition to several common-law claims, age discrimination under both Massachusetts law and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts consolidated the two cases. The district court then granted summary judgment for New York Life on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s state law age discrimination claims were time barred; (2) no reasonable jury could conclude that New York Life engaged in age discrimination under federal law in terminating his agent contract; and (3) no reasonable jury could conclude that the termination breached Plaintiff’s contract with New York Life or violated any of Plaintiff’s common law rights. View "Santangelo v. New York Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Professional Massage Training Center (PMTC) filed suit against the Accreditation Alliance of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC) after ACCSC denied PMTC’s application for re-accreditation. The district court entered judgment in favor of PMTC, finding that ACCSC had violated the school’s due process rights. The court awarded the school more than $400,000 in damages and ordered ACCSC to fully reinstate its accreditation. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in conducting a de novo approach to the accreditation process; (2) judged by the correct standard of review, the accreditation decision was well supported and not arbitrary or capricious; and (3) the district court correctly dismissed PMTC’s state law claims for breach of contract, negligence, and tortious interference. Remanded. View "Prof’l Massage Training v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schs." on Justia Law

In 1999, Allstate reorganized its business and terminated the at-will employment contracts of about 6,200 sales agents, offering them conversion to independent contractor status; $5,000 and an economic interest in their accounts, to be sold to buyers approved by Allstate; severance pay equal to one year’s salary; or severance pay of 13 weeks’ pay. Employees who chose independent contractor status received a bonus of at least $5,000, were not required to repay any office-expense advances, and acquired transferable interests in their business two years after converting. All employees who chose not to convert and left the company were bound by noncompetition covenants in their original contracts. As a condition of becoming independent contractors, agents were required to sign a release waiving existing legal claims against Allstate. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued, claiming that the company violated federal anti-retaliation laws. The district court reversed. The Third Circuit affirmed, noting the settled rule that employers can exchange consideration for releases of claims and that EEOC established neither protected activity nor an adverse action. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Allstate Ins. Co" on Justia Law