Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

During the COVID-19 pandemic, an employer instituted a company-wide vaccine mandate that applied to all employees, including those working remotely. Two remote employees requested religious exemptions from the vaccine requirement. One objected on the basis of her Christian beliefs regarding the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development, while the other cited her conscience and faith, referencing Catholic teachings. Both exemption requests were denied, and the employees were subsequently terminated.After their terminations, the two employees initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Their claims included religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and two disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): one for unlawful medical inquiry and one for being “regarded as” disabled due to their unvaccinated status. The district court dismissed all claims, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded that their objections were based on religious beliefs and finding that neither ADA theory was viable because vaccination status is not equivalent to a disability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ complaints plausibly alleged that their opposition to the vaccine mandate was an essential part of their religious faith and that their refusal to be vaccinated was connected to those beliefs. Therefore, the court found that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII religious discrimination claims at the pleading stage. However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of both ADA claims, holding that an inquiry into vaccination status is not a disability-related inquiry and that being unvaccinated does not constitute a physical or mental impairment under the ADA. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII claims. View "Finn v. Humane Society of the United States" on Justia Law

A Concord police officer discovered her firearm missing from the station’s lockers in 2013. Investigation revealed that another officer, the plaintiff, had mistakenly taken the firearm while transporting a prisoner to a hospital. The plaintiff gave inconsistent accounts about when she realized the mistake, telling supervisors she noticed it at the station, while her partner reported she only realized it at the hospital. An internal affairs investigation found the plaintiff’s statements lacked credibility and concluded she had lied to colleagues and supervisors about the incident. The police chief sustained these findings, terminated her employment, and submitted her name for inclusion on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES), formerly known as the “Laurie List.”The plaintiff appealed her termination to the City of Concord’s Personnel Appeals Board, which upheld the decision, finding her lacked credibility. She then filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging gender discrimination and wrongful termination, which was settled. The settlement required the City to remove documents related to the incident from her personnel file and maintain them in a separate investigative file, and to report her departure as a negotiated resignation.Years later, the plaintiff sued the City and the New Hampshire Department of Justice in Superior Court, seeking removal of her name from the EES under RSA 105:13-d. She argued the alleged misconduct was immaterial, the records were no longer in her personnel file, and her inclusion on the EES was unwarranted given the passage of time. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed, holding that RSA 105:13-d governs EES inclusion and applies to “personnel information,” not just personnel files. The court found the plaintiff’s untruthfulness constituted potentially exculpatory evidence and that it was reasonably foreseeable her misconduct could be admissible to impeach her credibility if she were called as a witness in a future case. View "Doe v. Concord Police Department" on Justia Law

Several individuals, representing a class, challenged a health insurance company’s refusal to cover gender-affirming care for transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The company, acting as a third-party administrator for employer-sponsored, self-funded health plans, denied coverage for such treatments based on explicit plan exclusions requested by the employer sponsors. Some plaintiffs also alleged that they were denied coverage for treatments that would have been covered for other diagnoses, such as precocious puberty, but were denied solely because of the concurrent diagnosis of gender dysphoria.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington certified the class and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court rejected the company’s arguments that it was not subject to Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act because its third-party administrator activities were not federally funded, that it was merely following employer instructions under ERISA, and that it was shielded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court also found that the exclusions constituted sex-based discrimination under Section 1557.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the company is subject to Section 1557, that ERISA does not require administrators to enforce unlawful plan terms, and that RFRA does not provide a defense in this context. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court’s analysis of sex-based discrimination was undermined by the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which clarified the application of sex discrimination standards to exclusions for gender dysphoria treatment. The Ninth Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider whether, under Skrmetti, the exclusions at issue may still constitute unlawful discrimination, particularly in cases involving pretext or proxy discrimination or where plaintiffs had other qualifying diagnoses. View "PRITCHARD V. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a black woman, worked as a Supervisory Medical Support Assistant at the Kansas City Veterans Administration (KCVA). After her supervisor, Angela Frey, was hired, the plaintiff alleged that Frey harassed her from the outset. The plaintiff was eventually assigned to a different position outside her original office and retired from the KCVA over a year later. She claimed that Frey discriminated against her based on race, retaliated against her for complaining about racial discrimination, created a racially hostile work environment, and constructively discharged her.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the KCVA. The district court found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of training, a negative performance review leading to reassignment, and interference with a job application in Florida were either too vague, unsupported by evidence, or based on inadmissible hearsay. The court also determined that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of discriminatory intent or a causal link between any protected activity and adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court concluded that the incidents described did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment or constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or constructive discharge under Title VII. The court emphasized that speculation and conclusory statements were insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial and that the conduct alleged did not meet the legal threshold for actionable discrimination or harassment. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Sherman v. Collins" on Justia Law

Giovanni Irizarry Sierra worked as an Attorney Advisor for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Puerto Rico and was terminated in March 2019 for unsatisfactory performance. He subsequently filed a complaint with the SSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO), alleging that his termination was the result of discrimination and retaliation. The OCREO reorganized his allegations, dismissing one as untimely and bifurcating the remainder into pre-termination and termination discrimination claims. The termination claim was treated as a “mixed case” because it involved both discrimination and an adverse personnel action.After receiving a report of investigation, Irizarry requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ dismissed the termination claim for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that mixed cases must proceed through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), not the EEOC. Irizarry then appealed his termination claim to the MSPB, which sustained his removal and notified him that he had thirty days from the final decision to seek judicial review in federal district court. Irizarry did not file within that period. Later, the OCREO erroneously issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) on the termination claim, which was subsequently rescinded.Irizarry filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, relying on the rescinded FAD. The SSA moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was untimely and the FAD was issued in error. The district court granted the motion, finding the claims time-barred and rejecting Irizarry’s arguments for equitable tolling and estoppel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Irizarry’s claim was untimely because he failed to file within thirty days of the MSPB’s final decision, and equitable relief was not warranted. View "Irizarry Sierra v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

A 69-year-old employee of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, who previously had a long career with the Chicago Police Department, was terminated from his position as Assistant Chief of the Electronic Monitoring Unit. The termination followed an internal investigation into his work performance, which included allegations that he was absent from his post without authorization, failed to communicate with his team, and used work hours and resources for personal business. The investigation, initiated after a complaint by his supervisor, involved interviews with colleagues and a review of GPS and work records, ultimately concluding that he had neglected his duties on multiple occasions.After his termination, the employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against his supervisor in her individual capacity and the Sheriff in his official capacity, alleging age discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). He also brought an indemnification claim against Cook County. During discovery, he presented affidavits from other older officers alleging ageist comments and discriminatory treatment by the same supervisor. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding insufficient evidence of age-based disparate treatment or causation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to identify similarly situated comparators who were treated more favorably, and that the evidence did not support a finding that any alleged discriminatory animus by the supervisor proximately caused the termination. The court also found that the internal investigation and the ultimate decisionmaker’s independent review provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, precluding liability under the Fourteenth Amendment, ADEA, and IHRA. View "Gaines v Dart" on Justia Law

Several healthcare employees in Colorado, including those at the University of Colorado Hospital Authority and South Denver Cardiology Associates, were terminated after refusing to comply with their employers’ COVID-19 vaccination mandates. These mandates, implemented in 2021, required employees to either be vaccinated or obtain a medical or religious exemption. The plaintiffs declined vaccination and did not seek exemptions, resulting in their dismissal.Following their terminations, the plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting nearly identical claims. They alleged violations of statutory, constitutional, and contractual rights, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state-law breach of contract and tort claims, and an implied private right of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds such as sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim. The district courts dismissed all claims, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled any viable legal theory. The courts also denied the plaintiffs’ requests to amend their complaints after judgment was entered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that none of the statutes cited by the plaintiffs—including the Emergency Use Authorization statute, the PREP Act, and 10 U.S.C. § 980—unambiguously conferred individual rights enforceable under § 1983. The court also found that the constitutional claims, including those based on due process and equal protection, were not adequately pled and that the breach of contract claim was waived for lack of argument. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courts’ judgments, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted and that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion in denying leave to amend. View "Timken v. South Denver Cardiology Associates" on Justia Law

A former employee of an Oklahoma-based aviation training company alleged that his one-year employment contract was not renewed because he is a disabled veteran and because he complained to human resources about his supervisor’s disparaging comments regarding his disability. The employee, a Marine veteran with a high VA disability rating, worked as a Loadmaster Instructor in Kuwait. During his tenure, he disclosed his disability status for affirmative action purposes and later informed his supervisor and a co-worker when his rating increased. After this disclosure, his supervisor made inappropriate remarks about the disability system and the employee’s status, which led to a complaint and a subsequent reprimand of the supervisor. The employee’s FAA flight certificate expired shortly before his contract ended, and he received a negative performance appraisal from his immediate supervisor. The company’s higher management, who were responsible for contract renewal decisions, cited subpar job performance and the lapse of the flight certificate as reasons for not renewing the contract.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims. The court found that the employee failed to present sufficient evidence that the stated reasons for non-renewal were pretextual under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or that the decision was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The court also held that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) does not protect against discrimination based solely on disability status, but rather on military service itself.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the employee did not create a triable issue of fact under the “cat’s paw” theory linking a supervisor’s alleged bias to the ultimate decisionmakers. The court also confirmed that USERRA does not extend to claims of discrimination based solely on disability status. View "Sellman v. Aviation Training Consulting" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked for a bank that operated a branch inside a public high school, was terminated from her employment after she publicly criticized the local school district’s mask mandate on social media and at school events. The bank’s operation at the school was part of a partnership in which the bank provided funds and services to the school district. The plaintiff’s children attended schools in the district, and she was active in school-related activities. After a series of confrontations and a critical Facebook post about a school board member, the school superintendent communicated with the bank’s branch manager, expressing disapproval of the plaintiff’s conduct and requesting that she be barred from school property. The bank subsequently suspended and then fired the plaintiff, citing her conduct and the school’s ban.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy or tortious interference. The court applied the Pickering balancing test, treating the plaintiff as a government contractor, and found no actionable retaliation. It also found no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the bank and the school district, and held that the superintendent and other officials were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the plaintiff was not a government employee or contractor for First Amendment purposes and was entitled to ordinary citizen protections. It found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the superintendent, the bank, and the branch manager retaliated against the plaintiff for protected speech, and whether the superintendent tortiously interfered with her employment. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the school board chair and the school district, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement or policy liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McNeally v. HomeTown Bank" on Justia Law

A former correctional officer with the Michigan Department of Corrections was terminated after a coworker accused him of making harassing and inappropriate comments. The officer, after being served with a misconduct charge and attending a disciplinary conference with his union representative, was formally terminated in July 2019. He challenged his termination through arbitration, which concluded in December 2020 with a decision upholding his dismissal. Nearly three years later, he filed a federal lawsuit against two department officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically focusing on procedural due process.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan initially dismissed the officer’s first complaint without prejudice for lack of prosecution after he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss. When he refiled a similar complaint, the district court dismissed it again, this time on the grounds that the claim was untimely under Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions and that, except for his procedural due process claim, he had forfeited his other constitutional arguments. The court also found that his procedural due process claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the officer’s procedural due process claim accrued, at the latest, on the date of his post-termination arbitration hearing in December 2020, making his June 2024 complaint untimely. The court further held that Michigan law does not permit equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in this context and that the officer failed to plausibly allege inadequate process either before or after his termination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Bozzo v. Nanasy" on Justia Law