Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Donald Stephens was employed as an operator for United States Environmental Services, LLC, a position that required him to maintain a valid commercial driver's license (CDL). During a Saturday shift, Stephens refused to perform tasks typically assigned to technicians and raised several safety concerns, including inadequate equipment and staff. He also disclosed a heart condition to his supervisor. As a result, he was required to undergo a medical examination, which led to a 45-day medical hold on his CDL. Although he was medically cleared to perform non-driving work, USES denied his request for reassignment and recommended he seek short-term disability. After the hold was lifted and he was cleared to drive, Stephens resigned, claiming discomfort with his treatment by USES. Stephens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court dismissed the FLSA claim and granted summary judgment to USES on the remaining claims. The court held that Stephens did not have a disability as defined by the ADA because his heart condition did not substantially limit a major life activity, and that USES did not regard him as disabled. The court also found that Stephens had not engaged in protected activity necessary to support a retaliation claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Stephens did not demonstrate a substantial limitation of a major life activity and did not establish that he engaged in protected activity under the ADA. The Eighth Circuit also declined to consider an argument Stephens raised for the first time on appeal. View "Stephens v. U.S. Environmental Services LLC" on Justia Law

A Black man worked as a truck salesman at a Florida business where he was the only nonwhite employee. He observed that his supervisors and colleagues frequently made derogatory, racially charged comments about nonwhite customers, including the use of slurs for various ethnic groups and stereotypes about Black customers. These comments occurred nearly every time a nonwhite customer entered the business, which happened often. The employee was also the subject of racial slurs behind his back and was sometimes called “boy” in a heated workplace dispute. He reported these incidents to his supervisor, but no corrective action was taken. Over time, his managers began documenting performance and attendance issues, and he was ultimately terminated and replaced by a white employee.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, finding the employee did not provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory termination or a racially hostile work environment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer on the claims of discriminatory and retaliatory termination. It held the employee failed to present substantial evidence that his termination was motivated by racial animus or retaliation for protected complaints, and the employer articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.However, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the employee presented substantial evidence that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment, including pervasive use of racial slurs and discriminatory conduct towards nonwhite individuals, sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on that claim. View "Melton v. I-10 Truck Center, Inc." on Justia Law

A female custodian employed by a public university filed a Title IX complaint alleging physical assault and a pattern of sexual harassment by a male co-worker, both of whom were members of the same union. The university, which receives federal funding, initiated a Title IX grievance process compliant with 2020 federal Title IX Regulations. After an investigation and hearing in which both parties participated, university decision-makers found the accused violated university policy and determined there was just cause for his termination. The accused’s appeal within the Title IX process was unsuccessful, and he was terminated.The union representing the accused employee filed a grievance under its 2019 collective negotiation agreement (CNA) with the university, seeking arbitration to determine whether the termination was for just cause. The university denied the grievance, arguing that the federal Title IX Regulations preempted the CNA’s grievance procedure. The union sought arbitration through the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which denied the university’s request to restrain arbitration and held, applying state preemption law, that the Title IX Regulations did not preempt arbitration. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, finding no conflict precluding the union’s grievance procedure.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the CNA’s grievance procedure is preempted by the 2020 federal Title IX Regulations because those regulations require that any grievance or appeal process must apply equally to both complainant and respondent. The CNA’s arbitration process excluded the alleged victim from participation, granting rights only to the accused. The Court concluded that this inequality creates a direct conflict with federal law, which therefore preempts the CNA’s arbitration provision in this context. The decision is limited to this particular CNA and does not preempt all union grievance procedures. View "In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888" on Justia Law

A probation officer with the Cook County Juvenile Probation Department alleged that her supervisors created a racially hostile work environment, culminating in her termination for performance issues and insubordination. She cited several workplace incidents, including the enforcement of a no-children-in-the-workplace policy, reprimands related to her work product and interactions with colleagues, and a 2016 meeting where the department director, while reading from a document, said the N-word in front of African American employees (an incident the plaintiff learned about secondhand). The plaintiff’s children occasionally waited in her office after school, and she was reminded of the policy prohibiting this practice. She also disagreed with supervisors over the content of reports submitted to the court, and she was ultimately terminated after an internal investigation found repeated insubordination and issues regarding her communications with clients and the court.The plaintiff first challenged her termination through union arbitration but lost. She then brought a lawsuit under Title VII in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that her employer subjected her to a race-based hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, concluding that the incidents cited, even when considered together, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive as required by Title VII, nor did the plaintiff demonstrate that the alleged harassment was based on race.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff did not present evidence of harassment that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, nor did she establish that the alleged conduct was based on race. The court also found no error in the exclusion of late-disclosed witness testimony. The judgment for the employer was affirmed. View "Jones v. Das" on Justia Law

A cloud-based real estate services company faced persistent and grave allegations that two top agents, along with several others, drugged and sexually assaulted company agents at events. Reports began surfacing in 2020, including a viral social media post and a memo sent to company executives detailing numerous incidents. Despite these warnings, the board initially terminated one perpetrator but continued paying him, and allowed others implicated to continue working. A whistleblower director raised these issues repeatedly at board meetings and with outside counsel, but the board’s responses were limited to internal investigations led by insiders and did not result in meaningful change. The company only took further action after survivors filed federal anti-trafficking lawsuits in 2023 and the story became public.Prior to the current litigation, federal courts sustained anti-trafficking claims against the company and its leadership, finding sufficient allegations that the leadership benefited from retaining perpetrators due to the company’s revenue-sharing structure. The defendants in this derivative action are not accused of direct misconduct, but of harming the company by allowing and covering up systemic sexual abuse. The plaintiff, a shareholder, alleges the board and certain officers actively covered up abuse and breached their fiduciary duties, and that some board members failed their oversight obligations in the face of numerous red flags.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It held that workplace sexual misconduct can constitute a corporate trauma supporting a breach of fiduciary duty claim under Delaware law. The court denied dismissal as to claims against the officer alleged to have benefited from covering up abuse, and against the directors for failing to respond in good faith to clear red flags. However, it granted dismissal of a novel claim seeking to extend oversight duties to a control group of shareholders, declining to make new law in that area. View "Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System v. Sanford" on Justia Law

A group of eleven current and former employees of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority challenged the Authority’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated unless they qualified for a medical or religious exemption. The policy allowed for exemptions if an employee provided sufficient medical documentation or demonstrated a sincerely held religious belief, provided that reasonable accommodations could be made without undue burden to the Authority. Thirteen employees applied for religious exemptions, but only the request of one fully remote employee was granted. One employee received a temporary medical exemption but was ultimately terminated after refusing vaccination once that exemption expired. Four appellants later became vaccinated and remained employed; the remaining seven were fired for noncompliance.After the Authority enacted its policy, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging violations of their rights under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. The state court initially granted a temporary restraining order, but after removal to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the district court denied their preliminary injunction request. On a prior appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial as to most claims but remanded for further consideration of the First Amendment claim, instructing the district court to address the relevance of the granted medical exemption and to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.On remand, the district court again denied a preliminary injunction, finding the policy to be generally applicable and thus subject to rational basis review, which it held the policy satisfied. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy’s medical and religious exemptions were not comparable for Free Exercise purposes, the policy was generally applicable, and the Authority’s interests justified the mandate under rational basis review. View "Brox v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority" on Justia Law

A former lieutenant in a county sheriff’s office was accused of using excessive force during two arrests. After an internal investigation was initiated, he was suspended and scheduled for a public hearing before a merit board, which is required under Indiana law for disciplinary actions. The lieutenant alleged that the sheriff manipulated both the investigation and the merit board to ensure an unfavorable outcome for him. Faced with the possibility of an unfair hearing and negative publicity, the lieutenant negotiated a severance agreement with the sheriff: he would resign and waive his hearing in exchange for withdrawal of the charges and a promise of a neutral reference.Despite the agreement, on the day the resignation became effective, two county prosecutors and the sheriff broadly disclosed the excessive-force allegations to local legal professionals and the lieutenant’s current and prospective employers, including through Brady/Giglio disclosures. The disclosures described the alleged misconduct and claimed issues with the lieutenant’s credibility, leading to his suspension from his part-time job and the loss of other employment opportunities. The lieutenant claimed these actions were part of a premeditated scheme to render him unemployable in law enforcement.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the complaint was dismissed. The district court found that absolute and qualified immunity protected the prosecutors and that the sheriff could not be liable because the lieutenant had voluntarily resigned, waiving his due process rights. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity only for Brady/Giglio disclosures made in pending criminal cases. For disclosures to the bar association and employers, neither absolute nor qualified immunity applied at this stage because the alleged coercion through misrepresentation could constitute a procedural due process violation. The appellate court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martin v. Goldsmith" on Justia Law

Stericycle, Inc. reorganized its sales department in 2021, creating a new position called Key Account Director (KAD) in both its national and hospital divisions. Cheryl Lane and Adrienne Hause, both female employees, were promoted to the National KAD role. Prior to being promoted, Lane and Hause were National Account Managers with base salaries of $92,784 and $95,026. After expressing concerns about salary disparities between themselves and male Hospital KADs, they received raises increasing their salaries to $98,000. The male Hospital KADs, some promoted and some transferred, generally received higher salaries, with promoted males receiving immediate raises and transferred males retaining their previous, often higher, salaries.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted summary judgment to Stericycle, finding that Lane and Hause had established a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act but that Stericycle’s pay practices were justified by a sex-neutral factor: prior salary history. The court found Stericycle had satisfied its affirmative defense for all comparators, concluding that salary disparities were not based on sex. The court also granted summary judgment on the Title VII claim, holding that Lane and Hause had failed to show intentional discrimination.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Lane and Hause received raises at the time of promotion, as their male counterparts did. The court held that summary judgment was improper in relation to the two promoted male Hospital KADs, as Stericycle failed to prove its affirmative defense as a matter of law, and there was a material factual dispute as to pretext under Title VII. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lane v Stericycle, Inc." on Justia Law

Karl Rabenhorst, a former Navy officer employed by FEMA, alleged that he was subjected to age and sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after being removed from a Puerto Rico disaster relief operation and later suspended without pay. The incidents leading to these adverse actions included reprimands for inappropriate interactions with state officials and insubordination, such as sending unauthorized emails and making disrespectful remarks. During the Puerto Rico deployment, Rabenhorst used derogatory language toward younger female coworkers, which prompted his removal from the operation.After his removal, Rabenhorst filed internal complaints, including a grievance with the DHS Office of Equal Rights, alleging discrimination and retaliation. FEMA investigated and ultimately denied his claims, issuing a final agency decision in 2021. Rabenhorst then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, asserting violations of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Homeland Security, finding that Rabenhorst failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he did not meet his employer’s legitimate expectations and could not show that similarly situated employees outside his protected classes were treated more favorably. The court also concluded that Rabenhorst provided no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that any adverse conduct was based on his age or sex. Regarding retaliation, the court found no causal link between his protected activity and the suspension decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed, holding that Rabenhorst did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. View "Rabenhorst v. Noem" on Justia Law

A fast-casual restaurant chain hired an individual with arthritis in her knees for a cashier/service-team member position. Prior to starting, she requested to be allowed to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing, due to her medical condition. The restaurant required employees in her role to multitask and maintain mobility throughout their shifts, handling various duties such as operating the register, restocking, cleaning, and serving customers. The employer concluded that her requested accommodation would prevent her from performing essential job functions and did not permit her to begin work until the accommodation issue was resolved.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed the case after the employee sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA), alleging failure to accommodate her disability and failure to engage in the interactive process. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the requested accommodation was not reasonable as a matter of law, and that her claim regarding the interactive process could not proceed without a viable accommodation claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employee’s proposed accommodation—sitting for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing—was not objectively reasonable because it would fundamentally alter essential functions of the cashier/service-team member position, which required continuous mobility and multitasking. The court further held that, because no reasonable accommodation was shown, the claim arising from the employer’s alleged failure to engage in the interactive process also failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed. View "Bowles v. SSRG II, LLC" on Justia Law