Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Rick Milteer, a disabled veteran and an observant African American Messianic Jewish believer, was employed by Navarro County, Texas, in its Texoma High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) division as an Information Technology (IT) manager. Milteer alleged that he faced discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. His claims were based on his supervisor's refusal to allow him to work remotely while recovering from surgery and during the Covid-19 pandemic, and his subsequent suspension and termination after he discovered a data breach and reported it.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Navarro County, dismissing all of Milteer's claims. The court found that Navarro County was Milteer's employer and that the County had provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Milteer's employment. The court also found that Milteer had failed to produce any evidence that he had informed the County of his disabilities or requested an accommodation from the County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the district court erred in treating Navarro County and the Texoma HIDTA as separate entities and in failing to impute the actions of Milteer's supervisor to the County. The court held that the Texoma HIDTA was not a legal entity capable of employing individuals, and that the actions and inactions of Milteer's supervisor could be imputed to the County. The court concluded that this error impacted the district court's analysis of Milteer's claims, necessitating a remand for further proceedings. View "Milteer v. Navarro County" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, amid pandemic mask mandates and nationwide racial justice protests, Whole Foods Market, Inc. began disciplining employees who wore facemasks to work supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, citing its dress code. The three plaintiff-appellants, Savannah Kinzer, Haley Evans, and Christopher Michno, persisted in wearing these masks, among taking other actions, until the company terminated them, ostensibly for repeated violations of the dress code or attendance policy. The Employees sued under Title VII, alleging retaliation. The district court granted Whole Foods' motion for summary judgment against all three.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that summary judgment was improper against one of the Employees, Savannah Kinzer, an outspoken critic of Whole Foods whose termination arguably deviated from the company's disciplinary process, but affirmed the court's holding as to both Haley Evans and Christopher Michno. The Employees also asked the court to review a discovery order compelling the production of communications whose confidentiality they argue is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The court declined to reach the merits of that issue. View "Kinzer v. Whole Foods Market, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around June LaMarr, an employee at the University of California Davis Medical Center, who was transferred to a different department following performance issues and conflicts with her supervisor. The transfer was initially temporary, but later became permanent, resulting in a decrease in LaMarr's pay. LaMarr sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging that her due process rights were violated as she was not provided a hearing under Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. before her demotion.The trial court found in favor of the Regents. It concluded that LaMarr was not deprived of due process when she was offered the option to either transfer to a non-supervisory position with reduced pay or return to her higher paying supervisory position and face possible termination proceedings. The court reasoned that the Regents never issued a notice of intent to dismiss and that LaMarr's feeling of duress did not trigger due process protections.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District, LaMarr appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the finding lacked substantial evidence. She contended that she was not informed of the adverse consequences of accepting a transfer and that her acceptance of the transfer was not voluntary.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. It found substantial evidence that the Regents did not violate LaMarr's due process rights because she was never notified of an intent to terminate and any demotion was voluntary. The court also noted that a difficult choice is not the same as an involuntary choice. It concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the Regents did not deprive LaMarr of due process. View "LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

Kevin D. Jones, an attorney, held a term position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before transferring to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). At the USDA, Jones primarily provided advice and counsel regarding discrimination complaints filed against the agency and litigated ensuing discrimination claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At the ATF, Jones served as an advisor to the Professional Review Board (PRB) as part of a team of attorneys in the Management Division of the ATF Office of General Counsel (OGC). After three months at the ATF, Jones was asked to resign due to his lack of contract law experience. Jones filed a complaint alleging discrimination and lack of due process in his termination.The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed Jones's administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Judge (AJ) of the MSPB found that Jones was not an "employee" as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) because his positions at the USDA and ATF were not the same or similar. The AJ noted several distinctions between the tasks Jones performed at each agency. Jones did not appeal the Initial Decision to the full Board, so the AJ’s Initial Decision became the Final Decision of the Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the AJ did not err in her determination that Jones's positions at the USDA and ATF were not similar. The court also found that the AJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's appeal. View "Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Tammie Terrell, an African-American nurse, applied for a Chief Nurse position at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital but was not selected. She sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Title VII, alleging race and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and a discriminatory and retaliatory hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Terrell failed to provide evidence that her race or national origin was a but-for cause of her non-selection or that it tainted the hiring process. The court also found that Terrell did not engage in any protected Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity that could form the basis for a retaliation claim. Furthermore, the court found that Terrell did not provide evidence that she experienced a hostile work environment due to her race, national origin, or EEO activity.Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Terrell's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, finding that Terrell was attempting to relitigate her case and present evidence that she could have raised at the summary-judgment stage. View "Terrell v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over an employer's vicarious liability under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) for an employee's discriminatory behavior towards a customer. The plaintiffs, Tiffany Vargas and Erika Acevedo, alleged that they were subjected to racial discrimination by an employee of Riverbend Management, LLC, at a McDonald's restaurant owned and operated by Riverbend. The employee, Andrew Mosley, used a racial slur against Vargas and Acevedo.The case was initially filed with the Maine Human Rights Commission, which issued a right-to-sue letter, allowing the plaintiffs to commence an action in the Superior Court. Riverbend filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was not vicariously liable for the race discrimination committed by its employee. The court partially granted the motion, entering judgment in favor of Riverbend on the gender discrimination claim but denied summary judgment on the race-discrimination claim.After a bench trial, the court found that while Mosley violated the MHRA when he used a racial slur against Vargas and Acevedo, Riverbend was not vicariously liable for Mosley’s actions. The court relied on both the Restatement (Second) of Agency and the Restatement (Third) of Agency in reaching its conclusion. Vargas and Acevedo appealed this decision.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court applied the Third Restatement's standard for determining an employer’s vicarious liability under the MHRA for an employee’s act of discrimination against a customer. The court found that Mosley's discriminatory act reflected an independent course of conduct "not actuated by a purpose to serve" Riverbend, and therefore, Riverbend was not vicariously liable for Mosley’s conduct. View "Vargas v. Riverben Management LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Songie Adebiyi, a former Vice President of Student Services at South Suburban College in Illinois, who was terminated in 2019 due to alleged performance issues. Adebiyi claimed that her termination was in retaliation for filing a charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights. She sued the college and its president, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the college and its president, ruling that Adebiyi failed to show a causal link between her charge of discrimination and her termination. The court found that the evidence did not support Adebiyi’s retaliation claim. Adebiyi appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her Title VII retaliation claim and abused its discretion when it denied her motion to amend the complaint and seek more discovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's finding that Adebiyi failed to demonstrate a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment action. The court found no evidence of pretext in the college's reasons for termination or suspicious timing between Adebiyi's filing of her EEOC and IDHR charge and her termination. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Adebiyi's motion to file an amended complaint and take additional discovery. View "Adebiyi v. South Suburban College" on Justia Law

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police officer in the St. Louis Police Department, alleged that she was transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department because of her gender. Despite maintaining her rank and pay, Muldrow's responsibilities, perks, and schedule were significantly altered. She filed a Title VII suit against the City of St. Louis, claiming that the transfer constituted sex discrimination with respect to her employment terms and conditions.The District Court granted the City summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a "materially significant disadvantage." The courts ruled that since the transfer did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits and only caused minor changes in working conditions, Muldrow's lawsuit could not proceed.The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation of Title VII. The Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. The Court rejected the City's arguments based on statutory text, precedent, and policy, and vacated the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, remanding the case for further proceedings under the correct Title VII standard. The Court clarified that Muldrow only needed to show some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions, not that the harm was significant. View "Muldrow v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

The case involves Marcus Anderson and Reed Clark, current and former employees of Harris County, who allege that Constable Christopher Diaz violated their First Amendment rights. They claim that Diaz instituted reforms to ensure his re-election, which included requiring employees to work on his campaign and retaliating against those who impeded campaign functions. The plaintiffs assert that Diaz had final authority over employment decisions and that his actions resulted in various adverse employment actions, ranging from transfer to termination.The plaintiffs initiated a suit against Diaz and Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Diaz violated their First Amendment rights. Harris County filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted, finding that Diaz was not a policymaker for Harris County. The district court dismissed all claims against the county with prejudice. Two years later, the district court issued a final judgment regarding the claims against Harris County, allowing the plaintiffs to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court agreed with the lower court's finding that Diaz, as a constable of a single precinct, was not a final policymaker for Harris County. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' alternative argument that Harris County was liable for Diaz's employment decisions under a delegation or rubber-stamp theory. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that the alleged First Amendment violations were the result of an official county policy, and therefore, their claims against Harris County were dismissed. View "Anderson v. Harris County" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Vogt, a deputy court clerk, who was fired by Lisa Rodebush, the McIntosh County Court Clerk, for not publicly supporting Rodebush's reelection campaign. Vogt had worked with Rodebush for thirteen years and had supported her in the past. However, during the 2020 reelection campaign, Vogt's best friend, a former employee of the County Court Clerk’s Office, ran against Rodebush. Vogt decided to support Rodebush privately but not publicly to maintain her friendship with Rodebush's opponent. Despite this, Vogt campaigned for Rodebush and provided advice for her campaign. Rodebush, however, was not satisfied with Vogt's level of support and eventually fired her after winning the election. Vogt then filed a lawsuit alleging that Rodebush violated her First Amendment rights of free speech and political affiliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied Rodebush's motion for summary judgment, where she asserted qualified immunity. Rodebush appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that a public official cannot condition a subordinate’s employment on her political beliefs, affiliation, or non-affiliation, unless the government has a vital interest in doing so. The court held that Rodebush violated Vogt's First Amendment right to political affiliation by firing her for not publicly supporting her reelection campaign. The court also found that Vogt's right was clearly established at the time of the violation, thus defeating Rodebush's claim of qualified immunity. View "Vogt v. McIntosh County Board" on Justia Law