Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff has a neurological disorder, tardive dyskinesia. Plaintiff’s involuntary movements include tongue thrusting, pursing of the lips, choking, and side-to-side chewing of the jaw. She becomes mute, screams or makes non-verbal sounds, particularly under stress. She also suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder, with severe anxiety. Shortly after plaintiff was diagnosed with TD, a personal injury suit that she had filed went to trial. She had no lawyer. Before trial, she sought accommodations of her medical problems, and was permitted to have a friend and a family member take notes, was given a podium, and was allowed to take occasional recesses. She was denied other requested help—a microphone, an interpreter, and a jury instruction explaining her disorder, lest the jurors think she was just acting up. She was hectored by the judge, who told the jury that the plaintiff has a “speech impediment.” She suffered other embarrassments in front of the jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for a new trial on the ground that she was disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act yet had been denied reasonable accommodations. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that plaintiff was denied a full and fair opportunity to vindicate her claims. View "Reed v. State of Illinois" on Justia Law

Each of these three consolidated cases originated with the filing of an action in the circuit court asserting claims against nursing home facilities for personal injuries suffered by a nursing home resident, violations of Ky. Rev. Stat. 216.510 et seq., and for wrongful death of the resident. At the time of each resident’s admission to the nursing home, the resident’s attorney-in-fact executed a written document providing that disputes arising out of the relationship between the resident and the nursing home would be submitted to arbitration. When each case was commenced, the defendant nursing home moved the circuit court to compel the parties to submit the claims to a formal arbitration proceeding. The circuit court denied the motion in each case, concluding that the respective power-of-attorney instruments did not authorize the resident’s attorney-in-fact to waive the resident’s right to access to the courts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) without a clear and convincing manifestation of the principal’s intention to do so, delegation to an agent of the authority to waive a trial by jury is not authorized, and the principal’s assent to the waiver is not validly obtained; and (2) the arbitration agreements in these cases were never validly formed. View "Extendicare Homes, Inc. v. Whisman" on Justia Law

The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL), and Treasury appealed a preliminary injunction that enjoins the government from enforcing the contraceptive mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4), and its implementing regulations against nonprofit religious organizations that offer healthcare coverage to their employees. The district court’s order also enjoined the government from enforcing the challenged provisions against “any insurance provider (including insurance issuers and third-party administrators) offering health insurance to” the organizations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that by coercing the organizations to participate in the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process under threat ofsevere monetary penalty, the government has substantially burdened their exercise of religion. Even assuming that the government’s interests in safeguarding public health and ensuring equal access to health care for women are compelling,the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process likely are not the least restrictive means of furthering those interests. View "Dordt College v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and its Freedom of Information Officer, received a request under the Freedom of Information Act from Ron Robillard for records concerning Amy Archer Gillian, who was convicted of second degree murder for the arsenic poisoning of a resident of her nursing home. Plaintiffs disclosed some, but not all, of the requested records. The Freedom of Information Commission determined that Gilligan’s medical and dental records were not exempt from disclosure. The trial court sustained Plaintiffs’ appeal as to those records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to appeal the decision of the Commission; and (2) the documents at issue were medical records related to the diagnosis and treatment of a patient and were, therefore, psychiatric records exempt from disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-146e. View "Freedom of Info. Officer, Dep’t of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Religious, not-for-profit organizations challenged the “contraceptive mandate” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4), arguing that the ACA’s accommodations for religious organizations impose a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion, and that the ACA and accompanying regulations are not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest, in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. The district court entered a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating: It is the operation of federal law, not any actions that the plaintiffs must take, that causes the provisions of services that the plaintiffs find morally objectionable. The accommodation has the legal effect of removing from objectors any connection to the provision of contraceptive services. View "Grace Schools v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as the personal representative of Curtis Suggs, filed suit against the District, Symbral, and others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, federal law regulating community residential facilities, and the common law. Suggs died while residing in a group home operated by Symbral, a District contractor. The District appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the section 1983 claims and negligence claims, and against Symbral and Defendants Leon and Yvonne Mohammed, as well as appealed the district court's denial of the District's post-trial motion. After reviewing the record and considering the parties' arguments, the court concluded that the district court did not err in entering summary judgment against the District on plaintiff’s section 1983 claim, and the court affirmed that portion of the decision on review. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his negligence and statutory claims, concluding that those claims are barred under D.C. Code 12-309. Because the district court abused its discretion by excluding causation evidence, the court vacated the damages and remand for reconsideration. View "Harvey v. Mohammed" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the religious exemption in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Plaintiff also argued that the Administration’s decision to temporarily suspend enforcement of some of the Act’s requirements for a transitional period deprived him of the equal protection of the laws. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss and held that plaintiff lacked standing to bring either claim. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff lacks standing to assert his equal protection claim because nothing in the transitional policy requires him to buy insurance. In this case, plaintiff's inability to maintain his old plan was the independent choice of his insurer. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff did have standing to bring his Establishment Clause challenge. On the merits, the court concluded that the claim fails because the qualifications for exemption are not drawn on sectarian lines. Rather, they simply sort out which faiths have a proven track record of adequately meeting the statutory goals. Moreover, the exemption promotes the Establishment Clause’s concerns by ensuring that those without religious objections do not bear the financial risk and price of care for those who exempt themselves from the tax. As configured by this specific statutory framework, that is an objective, non-sectarian basis for cabining the exemption’s reach. View "Cutler v. HHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of religious non-profit organizations affiliated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese, filed suit challenging regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119. The district court concluded that regulations promulgated under the Act that allow religious non-profit employers to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage themselves violate these religious employers’ rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. The court concluded, however, that the challenged accommodation for religious objectors relieves, rather than imposes, any substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise, and thus does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Temporary civil commitment at New Jersey psychiatric hospitals is subject to regular review; patients have the right to counsel, to be present at the hearing, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. In a challenge to the state’s “Rennie process” for forcible medication, the Third Circuit held, in 1984, that civilly committed psychiatric patients “have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication” in nonemergency situations and the process accommodated that right consistent with the Due Process Clause. A 2010 challenge alleged that the Rennie process violated the Constitution, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and demanded that the state “provide patients who refuse the non-emergency administration of psychotropic medication with meaningful due process protections—including legal counsel, notice and a hearing before a judicial decision-maker.” The state replaced the Rennie process with policies for forcible treatment in emergencies (AB 5:04A), which were not challenged, and nonemergent situations (AB 5:04B). The nonemergency policy permits longer-term forcible medication of a patient, involuntarily committed, who, as a result of a diagnosed mental illness, poses a substantial risk of serious harm to self, others, or property “within the reasonably foreseeable future” if psychotropic medication is not administered. Patients who satisfy the substantive requirements may be forcibly medicated only pursuant to procedures that stop short of prior judicial review. The Third Circuit affirmed that AB 5:04B is valid, except as to patients who have been not to require continued commitment but who remain in custody pending transfer. View "Disability Rights N.J., Inc. v. Comm'r N.J. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the owner of a pharmacy and two individual pharmacists who have religious objections to delivering emergency contraceptives, challenged the Commission's rules requiring the timely delivery of all prescription medications by licensed pharmacies. The rules permit pharmacies to deny delivery for certain business reasons, such as fraudulent prescriptions or a customer’s inability to pay; permit a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny delivery, so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery; but, unless an enumerated exemption applies, the rules require a pharmacy to deliver all prescription medications, even if the owner of the pharmacy has a religious objection. The district court held that the rules violate the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, and the court permanently enjoined enforcement of the rules. The court reversed, concluding that the rules are neutral and generally applicable and that the rules rationally further the State’s interest in patient safety. Further concluding that the rules do not infringe on a fundamental right, the court reversed the judgment. View "Stormans, Inc. v.Wiesman" on Justia Law