Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Louisiana was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on whether the commencement of a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue interrupts prescription as to causes of action, understood as legal claims rather than the facts giving rise to them, not asserted in that suit. This query arose from the case of Randall Kling who initially filed suit in state court alleging his dismissal from the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control was in retaliation for submitting written complaints about workplace and ethics violations. He later filed a complaint in federal district court citing substantially similar facts and seeking relief for violations of his federal First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The Supreme Court of Louisiana answered the certified question by stating that prescription or the period within which a lawsuit may be filed is interrupted when notice is sufficient to fully inform the defendant of the nature of the claim of the plaintiff, and what is demanded of the defendant. The Court explained that the essence of interruption of prescription by suit is notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved. The court emphasized that notice is sufficient when it fully informs the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claim, and what is demanded of the defendant. Thus, the court took a balanced approach between a broad interpretation of interruption and a narrow one, placing emphasis on notice to the defendant, addressed on a case-by-case basis. View "KLING VS. HEBERT" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, plaintiff Catherine Erdman, a firefighter from Janesville, Wisconsin, applied for a position with the Madison fire department. Erdman claimed that the Madison fire department's Physical Abilities Test (PAT), which she failed to pass, had a disparate impact on women, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Erdman proposed an alternative test, the Candidate Physical Abilities Test (CPAT), licensed by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), which she claimed would have less disparate impact on women while still effectively measuring an applicant's physical abilities.The district court found that Erdman had shown the Madison PAT had a prima facie disparate impact on women. However, it also found that the Madison PAT was job-related and served the city’s legitimate needs, and that Erdman had failed to prove that the IAFF test would adequately serve the city’s legitimate needs. Erdman appealed the decision.The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling. It agreed that the Madison PAT as a whole, not its individual components, should be considered as the "particular employment practice" for the purpose of determining disparate impact. The court found that Erdman had established her prima facie case of disparate impact as the Madison PAT as a whole showed a statistically significant disparate impact on female applicants.However, the appeals court also agreed with the district court's finding that Erdman failed to prove that the IAFF test would serve the Madison fire department's legitimate needs as well as the Madison PAT. This was based on testimony that certain elements of the Madison PAT were specifically designed for Madison, considering the city’s characteristics, the fire department’s equipment, and safety considerations. Also, the court noted that the Madison fire department had a higher-than-average rate of hiring and retaining female firefighters compared to the national average, suggesting the effectiveness of the Madison PAT. View "Erdman v. City of Madison" on Justia Law

This case involves Bradley Barlow, Frances Biddiscombe, and others who were members of either the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 668 or the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 13. They all signed union membership agreements authorizing the deduction of membership dues from their paychecks. The authorizations were irrevocable, regardless of union membership status, unless they provided written notice of revocation within a specified annual window. After resigning from their respective unions, their membership dues continued to be deducted until the next annual revocation window. They sued, claiming that the continued collection of dues after their resignations constitutes compelled speech, violating their First Amendment rights. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public-sector unions charging fees to nonmembers is a form of coerced speech that violates the First Amendment. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of their complaints, holding that Janus was focused on nonmembers who never elected to join a union, not members who voluntarily join a union and later resign. The court also rejected their due process claims for failure to provide procedures for notice and the ability to object to how their dues were spent, as these procedures were based on avoiding subjecting nonconsenting individuals from subsidizing a political agenda, which was not the case for these appellants. The court also rejected the appellants' contract defenses. View "Barlow v. Service Employees International Union" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed an appeal by Carolyn Johnson, an African-American female who worked at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center (LSUHSC) as an Administrative Coordinator. Johnson alleged that she experienced sexual and racial harassment as well as retaliation from her former employer, LSUHSC. The harassment claims were based on a specific incident involving a colleague, Dr. Jeffrey Schumacher, slapping her on the buttocks, as well as several other instances of inappropriate behavior by Schumacher in the months preceding this incident. After reporting the conduct to her supervisor and Human Resources, Johnson was temporarily relocated to a different workspace while an investigation was conducted. Johnson claimed this relocation was in retaliation for her reporting the harassment.The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of LSUHSC on all counts. Regarding the harassment claims, the court found that while Johnson had sufficiently demonstrated that she was the victim of uninvited sexual and racial harassment, she failed to show that LSUHSC knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action. The court determined that LSUHSC took action to separate Johnson and Schumacher in response to Johnson's complaint and began an investigation into the matter, which was ultimately substantiated.In terms of the retaliation claim, the court found that Johnson failed to demonstrate that LSUHSC's decision to relocate her was a pretext for retaliation. The court noted that LSUHSC provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for her relocation, which was to separate Johnson and Schumacher during the investigation. Johnson did not present evidence to suggest that this reason was pretextual. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment on Johnson’s retaliation claim. View "Johnson v. Board of Suprs of LSU" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Gregory Kelly, the former Town Manager of Abingdon, Virginia, sued the Town for discrimination, retaliation, interference, and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Kelly alleged that he suffers from anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure, and these conditions worsened due to a hostile work environment created by the elected Mayor and Town Council. He further alleged that, despite his efforts to seek accommodations for his disabilities, the Town failed to engage in a meaningful dialogue to determine appropriate accommodations, and instead escalated its pattern of harassment.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Kelly's discrimination and interference claims, along with its ruling that a letter Kelly sent to the Town in January 2018 was not an ADA accommodation request. The court reasoned that although Kelly had informed the Town of his disabilities and it was aware of them, the January 2018 letter, despite being titled "Accommodations Requests," did not make it clear that Kelly was seeking accommodations for his disabilities. The requests in the letter were not connected to Kelly's disabilities and were more related to general workplace issues. Therefore, the letter did not trigger the Town's duty to engage in an interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations under the ADA.The Court also found that Kelly failed to state a claim for ADA discrimination. He did not provide any facts suggesting that the Town had a discriminatory motive or that his disability was a "but-for" cause of his constructive discharge. The Court further held that Kelly failed to state a claim for ADA interference, as he did not allege that the Town engaged in behavior to prevent him from exercising his ADA rights or that the Town had a discriminatory motive. View "Kelly v. Town of Abingdon" on Justia Law

Barbara Lindsay, the former Director of Workforce Development and Career Services at Emily Griffith Technical College (EGTC), sued Denver Public Schools (DPS) and Stephanie Donner, EGTC's Executive Director, for retaliation. Lindsay claimed that her termination was motivated by her opposition to racist comments made during the hiring process for the Executive Director position and her assistance to a candidate in filing employment discrimination charges. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of DPS and Donner. Lindsay appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence to prove a causal relationship between Lindsay's protected activity (opposition to racist comments and assistance in filing discrimination charges) and her termination. The Court determined that there was no evidence that those who decided to terminate Lindsay's employment were aware of her protected activity. The court further noted that Lindsay failed to show that anyone at DPS knew that she had assisted in bringing discrimination charges before she was fired. Therefore, Lindsay's claim that she was terminated in retaliation for protected activities could not be substantiated. View "Lindsay v. Denver Public Schools" on Justia Law

In this case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiff, Christina Littler, a bus driver for a school district, appealed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Ohio Association of Public School Employees (OAPSE), a union she had joined. Littler had filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the wrongful deduction and retention of union dues. She claimed that she had withdrawn her union membership and therefore her dues deduction authorization too, but OAPSE had continued to deduct dues from her paycheck. On remand from an earlier appeal, the district court held that Littler had failed to show that OAPSE was a state actor under § 1983, and thus granted OAPSE summary judgment on Littler’s § 1983 claim.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Littler had failed the first prong of the "state action" test under § 1983, as she could not show that the alleged deprivation was caused by any governmental policy or decision. Instead, the conduct she complained about was inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement and violated her agreement with OAPSE. This conduct was attributed to a private actor—OAPSE—acting contrary to any rule of conduct imposed by the state, and therefore could not be attributed to the state. The court also rejected Littler's argument that the deprivation was caused by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the school district’s compliance with the union’s request to withhold dues from her paycheck. Instead, the court held that the specific conduct complained about was OAPSE’s failure to process Littler’s withdrawal pursuant to the membership application and remove her name from the deduction list. This was not governed by a state-imposed rule of conduct but rather by a private individual or organization’s policy. Thus, the court concluded that the challenged conduct could not be fairly attributable to the state. View "Littler v. Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Emps." on Justia Law

In this case heard by the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, Kimberly Barnes-Staples applied for a Real Estate Director position with the General Services Administration (GSA). However, the GSA hired another candidate. Barnes-Staples subsequently sued the GSA, alleging that the interview process discriminated against her because of her race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the GSA.Barnes-Staples argued that the GSA did not follow its internal anti-discrimination procedures, which she claimed allowed the GSA to hire a less qualified candidate. She also contended that she was the superior candidate, so the GSA's assertion that the other candidate was more qualified was pretextual. Furthermore, Barnes-Staples asserted that there was a systemic practice of discrimination against Black candidates and employees within the GSA.The Appeals Court, however, found that Barnes-Staples was not "clearly better qualified" than the candidate who was hired. It also found no evidence that the GSA created interview questions to favor the other candidate, nor was there evidence that the GSA violated its own guidelines during the interview process. The court also noted that while Barnes-Staples presented data on promotion and employment rates within the GSA, she failed to provide sufficient context or detail for this data to support her claim of systemic discrimination.The Appeals Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the GSA. Additionally, it found that Barnes-Staples had waived her sex discrimination claim as she did not properly develop this argument before the district court. View "Barnes-Staples v. Carnahan" on Justia Law

Craig Price, a Black man, filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Valvoline LLC, alleging that his employment was terminated due to his race and he was subjected to a hostile work environment. Valvoline operated on an attendance policy, and Price had been repeatedly warned about his absenteeism, with his employment eventually terminated after he missed a shift due to food poisoning. Price also alleged that discriminatory comments had been made by his supervisors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Valvoline. The Appeals Court found that Price's employment was terminated due to his repeated absenteeism, not because of his race. Furthermore, the court concluded that the allegedly race-motivated comments were not objectively severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The court also noted that Price could not demonstrate that the alleged harassment he experienced was frequent or that it interfered with his work performance. Therefore, Price's claims of race discrimination and a hostile work environment were rejected. View "Price v. Valvoline" on Justia Law

In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of Peter Vlaming, a high school French teacher who was terminated by the West Point School Board for refusing to use a transgender student's preferred pronouns. Vlaming had chosen to use the student's preferred name but avoided using any third-person pronouns to refer to the student as it conflicted with his religious beliefs. The School Board fired Vlaming for not complying with its policy to use government-mandated pronouns.Vlaming sued the School Board, alleging that his termination violated his constitutional, statutory, and breach-of-contract rights. The Circuit Court dismissed Vlaming's claims, holding that they failed to state legally viable causes of action. The Supreme Court of Virginia, however, reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court concluded that Vlaming's complaint sufficiently alleged that the School Board substantially burdened his right to free exercise of religion under the Virginia Constitution and that his claims under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act should not have been dismissed. Moreover, the Court held that Vlaming has alleged a viable compelled speech claim under the free speech provision of the Virginia Constitution. The Court rejected the School Board's argument that it could compel Vlaming's speech as part of his official duties as a teacher. The Court concluded that Vlaming's refusal to use certain pronouns did not interfere with his duties as a French teacher or disrupt the school's operations.The Court's decision reaffirmed the fundamental right to free speech and the free exercise of religion under the Virginia Constitution, emphasizing that these rights extend to public school teachers in their interactions with students. It clarified that although the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring non-discrimination and respect for all students, this interest must be balanced against individual rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Court also clarified that a public school teacher's speech in the classroom is not entirely within the control of the school board and that teachers cannot be compelled to express views that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs. View "Vlaming v. West Point School Board" on Justia Law