Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After receiving a long suspension, Jacob Doe sued Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (“Virginia Tech”) and several university officials, alleging that Virginia Tech’s Title IX investigation, hearing, and appeal process denied him due process of law. The district court dismissed Doe’s complaint, holding that he hadn’t alleged a cognizable liberty or property interest in his continuing education.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed for a different reason. The court held that even assuming Doe has such an interest, he hasn’t alleged that he was deprived of it without sufficient process. The court wrote that Doe complains that his witnesses couldn’t appear in person at the hearing because it was held during the summer. But he doesn’t allege that the witnesses weren’t able to provide testimony by phone, video, or in writing. Nor does Doe claim he sought to continue the hearing until his witnesses were available. And Doe admits that the investigator interviewed his witnesses during her investigation into Roe, and the allegations against Roe were adjudicated at the same hearing. So these allegations too, don’t rise to the level of a due-process violation.   Moreover, the court explained that to find that Doe alleged a due-process violation on this sparse record, the court would have to hold that university students have a right—in effectively every disciplinary hearing—to advance notice of the evidence to be presented against them. The ask is even more striking here because Doe doesn’t allege that he sought a continuance or that Virginia Tech relied on the surprise testimony. Therefore, the court rejected Doe’s claim of error. View "Jacob Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universit" on Justia Law

In 2016, San Francisco voters amended their city charter to authorize voting in local school board elections by noncitizen parents and guardians of school-age children. In 2018, the Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance implementing Proposition N, including provisions requiring the City’s Department of Elections to develop a noncitizen voter registration form for school board elections. In 2022, after multiple school board elections in which noncitizens voted, this lawsuit was brought alleging the charter amendment violated the California Constitution. The trial court granted found the effective ordinance void and unenforceableThe court of appeal reversed and awarded the city costs. Neither the plain language of the Constitution nor its history prohibits legislation expanding the electorate to noncitizens. The relevant constitutional provisions authorizing home rule permit charter cities to implement such an expansion in local school board elections. This authority is consistent with the principles underlying home rule and permits the voters of each charter city to determine whether it is good policy for their city or not. View "Lacy v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, three transgender boys, were denied access to the boys’ bathrooms at school. The boys sued the districts and the school principals, alleging sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The boys requested preliminary injunctions that would order the schools to grant them access to the boys’ bathrooms and, in the case of two boys, access to the boys’ locker rooms when changing for gym class. The district courts granted the preliminary injunctions.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that litigation over transgender rights is occurring all over the country and that at some point the Supreme Court will likely step in with more guidance than it has furnished so far. The district courts appropriately followed Circuit precedent in crafting narrowly tailored and fact-bound injunctions. There was no abuse of discretion in the balancing of the equities and the public interest. The records showed only speculative harms, which are not enough to tip the balance. View "A.C. v. Kutruff" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, in disciplinary proceedings, private universities are not required to provide accused students the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuser and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in attendance, either in person or virtually.The University of Southern California and its vice president of student affairs (collectively, USC) expelled Appellant after conducting an investigation and determining that Appellant violated USC's policy against engaging in intimate partner violence. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate, arguing that he was deprived of a fair trial under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1094.5. The court of appeals agreed, determining that USC's disciplinary procedures were unfair because they denied Appellant a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine critical witnesses at an in-person hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that requiring private universities to conduct the hearing envisioned by the court of appeals was contrary to fair procedure caselaw. View "Boermeester v. Carry" on Justia Law

C.S. has developmental and cognitive disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. C.S., then in sixth grade attempted to use the hallway elevator. A teacher told C.S. to stop. C.S. did not comply. Ultimately, three staff members forced C.S. onto the floor and pinned her face down while handcuffing her hands behind her back, and later bound her legs before returning her to her wheelchair. C.S. was handcuffed and bound for 34 minutes until her mother, Thomas, took her home. Thomas also alleged that days later, C.S. may have scratched or grabbed another student and was required to eat her lunch in the school office. While there, C.S. became dysregulated, prompting staff to respond “with similar aggressive force,” including calling the police. The District sought a juvenile delinquency prosecution of C.S. Charges were dropped when C.S. was found not competent to stand trial. A.S. (C.S.’s brother) had previously attended the same school and, after an incident, the school’s then-principal requested charges against A.S. His prosecution was also dropped after a finding that he was incompetent to stand trial.Thomas alleged (42 U.S.C. 1983) that the District had a “practice or protocol of utilizing excessive punitive and retaliatory force or threats of force to punish students with behavioral disabilities.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Thomas’s suit. Thomas failed to plausibly allege a widespread custom or practice of violating disabled students’ Fourth Amendment rights. View "Thomas v. Neenah Joint School District" on Justia Law

A disabled public school student was sexually assaulted by another student with known violent tendencies. Despite knowing of this attack, the victim’s teachers let both her and her aggressor wander the school unsupervised, and she was again assaulted by the very same student. The victim’s mother sued the school district under Title IX and various school officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In her Section 1983 claim against the school officials, she alleged liability under the so-called “state-created danger” doctrine. The district court denied that motion and stayed proceedings on the Title IX claim pending this interlocutory appeal of the Section 1983 ruling.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Section 1983 claim. The court explained that the Circuit has never adopted a state-created danger exception to the sweeping “no duty to protect” rule. And a never-established right cannot be a clearly established one. As for whether to adopt the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability moving forward, the court was reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process for two reasons: (1) the Supreme Court’s recent forceful pronouncements signaling unease with implied rights not deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition; and (2) the absence of rigorous panel briefing that grapples painstakingly with how such a cause of action would work in terms of its practical contours and application, vital details on which the court’s sister circuits disagree. Rather than break new ground, the court ruled instead on a narrower ground, one that follows the court’s unbroken precedent. View "Fisher v. Moore" on Justia Law

Michigan State University's “COVID directives,” included a requirement that all employees receive a vaccine by August 31, 2021, even those who worked remotely. The policy included religious and medical exemptions. Medical exemptions were limited to “CDC-recognized contraindications and for individuals with disabilities.” It did not provide an exemption based on immunity acquired from a COVID-19 infection. The plaintiffs all tested positive for COVID-10 and claimed that, based on their natural immunity, it was medically unnecessary for them to be vaccinated. They did not comply with the policy; one was terminated, one was placed on unpaid leave, and one received a religious exemption.Their suit claimed violations of their constitutional rights to bodily autonomy and to decline medical treatment, alleging that MSU cannot establish a compelling governmental interest in overriding those constitutional rights; the policy constitutes an unconstitutional condition on continued state employment; and the policy contradicts the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. It is sufficient that MSU could rationally believe that requiring the vaccine for naturally immune individuals would further combat COVID-19 on its campus. The plaintiffs did not adequately explain how receiving a vaccine violates a fundamental right, which would invoke a higher level of scrutiny. The EUA is meant to ensure patients’ consent to the pharmaceutical they are receiving and does not mean that MSU cannot require vaccination as a term of employment. View "Norris v. Stanleys" on Justia Law

Hess, a 17-year-old student, was required to participate in a ride-along with Hammond Officer Garcia. Her complaint describes a day-long sequence of inappropriate comments and questions punctuated by unwelcome physical sexual contact. Garcia allegedly rubbed his arm against her breast, repeatedly placed his hand on Hess’s thigh, put his hand on her buttocks, stated that Hess wanted to become a prostitute, and, while in a secluded location, asked another officer if he wanted to have sex with Hess. After Hess’s ride along, another female classmate participated in the course-required ride with Garcia. When the classmate told Hess that Garcia had acted inappropriately, the girls reported their experiences.Hess sued Garcia and Chief Doughty in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim against Doughty for lack of allegations of the requisite level of involvement in the alleged violations. The court reversed the dismissal of the claim against Garcia. It is well established that sexual assault by a government official acting under the color of law can violate the Equal Protection Clause as sex discrimination, the Fourth Amendment right “of the people to be secure in their persons,” and the right to bodily integrity protected by the Due Process Clause. The court rejected arguments that the alleged conduct was simply “boorish” and not serious enough to implicate the Constitution. Sexual assault is an intentional act that never serves a legitimate governmental purpose. View "Hess v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s award of summary judgment to defendant Liberty University, Inc. (“Liberty”) on Palmer’s claim of age discrimination, pursued under provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”)  (the “Statutory Ruling”). On the other hand, Liberty, by cross-appeal, challenged an earlier award of summary judgment that was made to Plaintiff, in which the court ruled that Plaintiff was not a “minister” for purposes of the First Amendment’s so-called “ministerial exception” (the “Constitutional Ruling”).   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Statutory Ruling, dismissed Liberty’s cross-appeal, and vacated the Constitutional Ruling. The court explained that it agreed with the district court that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of age-based discrimination to overcome Liberty’s summary judgment motion on that issue. Accordingly, the court was satisfied to affirm the Statutory Ruling in favor of Liberty. Moreover, in light of that disposition — and pursuant to the constitutional avoidance doctrine — the court refrained from resolving whether Plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. As a result, the court wrote it was obliged to dismiss Liberty’s cross-appeal and vacate the Constitutional Ruling. View "Eva Palmer v. Liberty University, Incorporated" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court appeals denying the Texas Tech University School of Medicine's combined plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motion in the underlying unlawful discrimination action, holding that morbid obesity does not qualify as an impairment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) without evidence that it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition.After Plaintiff was dismissed from Texas Tech's medical residency program she brought this complaint alleging that the University dismissed her because of her morbid obesity, which she argued constituted unlawful discrimination under the TCHRA. The University filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment motion, arguing that it was protected under sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the plea and motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) morbid obesity qualifies as an impairment under the Labor Code only when caused by a physiological disorder or condition; and (2) Plaintiff could not establish that the University regarded her as having an impairment, and Plaintiff failed to show a disability as defined in the Labor Code. View "Tex. Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Niehay" on Justia Law