Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In the case between Jennifer Harris and FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Harris alleged race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Harris's § 1981 claims were time-barred under her employment contract, making them fail as a matter of law. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict for Harris on her Title VII retaliation claim. In view of Title VII’s $300,000 cap on damages and the evidence presented at trial, the court remitted Harris’s compensatory damages to $248,619.57 and concluded she was not entitled to punitive damages. FedEx was not entitled to a new trial because of the court’s evidentiary ruling. View "Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services" on Justia Law

Clare Mundell worked as a licensed clinical psychologist for Acadia Hospital in Maine. She discovered that her male colleagues were paid significantly more than her for comparable work. Mundell brought a sex discrimination action against Acadia under federal and state law, specifically the Maine Equal Pay Law ("MEPL"). The district court found Acadia liable under the MEPL and awarded Mundell treble damages. On appeal, Acadia argued that the district court erred in holding that Mundell could prevail without establishing Acadia's discriminatory intent and because Acadia claimed a reasonable-factor-other-than-sex defense to explain the pay difference. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the MEPL does not impose an intent requirement on a plaintiff, nor does it permit a defendant to rely on a catch-all affirmative defense such as market factors to explain pay disparity. The court also concluded that treble damages are available for MEPL violations. View "Mundell v. Acadia Hospital Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by workers against Harley-Davidson Motor Company Operations, Inc., and Syncreon.US. The workers, who are Black or People of Color, alleged that the companies created a hostile work environment and aided and abetted racial discrimination in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. The workers detailed numerous racially charged incidents at a manufacturing and assembly facility operated by Harley-Davidson and staffed by workers provided by Syncreon.US. The incidents included frequent racial insults, physical division of workers based on race, and multiple instances of hate symbols and threats found in the facility. The court found that the workers' allegations, if true, could establish the elements of a hostile work environment claim and aiding and abetting claims. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "Matthews vs. Harley Davidson" on Justia Law

Chinyere Ogbonna-McGruder, an African American professor, alleged that her employer, Austin Peay State University (APSU), and her supervisors engaged in racial discrimination and created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her when she opposed their unlawful conduct. She also claimed that her supervisors violated her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. The court ruled that Ogbonna-McGruder failed to sufficiently allege that the harassment she experienced was severe or pervasive, a necessary element of a hostile work environment claim. The court also found that she did not sufficiently allege that any adverse employment actions were motivated by discriminatory animus, and that she did not adequately assert that the conduct forming the basis of her §1983 claim violated a specific constitutional provision. View "Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ." on Justia Law

April Ingram, an African American woman, was employed as a Program Specialist by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) from 2012 to 2021. She was responsible for the keys to office doors and the money designated for hobby crafts at the Tucker Unit, a prison run by ADC. An inmate broke into the office, and the keys and $359 in funds were missing. ADC terminated Ingram for alleged policy violations, unsatisfactory work performance resulting in property damage, falsification of statements, and theft or mishandling of ADC funds or assets for personal gain. Ingram filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination based on her race and sex. To support her claim, she mentioned three instances where a male counterpart was treated more favorably than her in related incidents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed Ingram’s claims. The court found that Ingram failed to provide sufficient evidence that she was meeting ADC’s legitimate expectations and that the circumstances gave rise to an inference of discrimination. The court also noted that Ingram did not allege that any of ADC’s reasons for termination were false or pretextual. She did not sufficiently argue that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. Instead, she provided instances of other employees' misconduct, but these employees were not similarly situated to her in terms of job duties and responsibilities. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ingram's claims. View "Ingram v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction" on Justia Law

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