Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

This case concerns an appeal by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") against a jury's verdict in favor of Lawanna Tynes, a former employee. Tynes had sued the Department for race and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, after she was terminated from her position as the superintendent of the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center. The Department argued on appeal that Tynes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as required under the evidentiary framework set by the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green case, because the comparator employees she presented were not similarly situated in all material respects.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court ruled that the Department's focus on the McDonnell Douglas framework and the adequacy of Tynes's comparators missed the ultimate question in a discrimination case, which is whether there is enough evidence to show that the reason for an adverse employment action was illegal discrimination. The jury found that the Department had intentionally discriminated against Tynes, and the Department did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for that conclusion on appeal. Therefore, the Department's arguments regarding the adequacy of Tynes's comparators and the insufficiency of her prima facie case were irrelevant and did not disturb the jury's verdict.The Department also challenged the jury's verdict on Tynes's § 1981 claim, arguing that her complaint did not adequately plead the § 1981 claim and that she did not prove that race was a but-for cause of her termination. However, the appellate court found that the Department had forfeited both arguments because it failed to challenge the district court's authority to allow an amendment to the pleadings during the trial under Rule 15(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and did not argue that Tynes failed to prove that race was a but-for cause in its post-trial motion.Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Tynes on both her Title VII and § 1981 claims. View "Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice" on Justia Law

Plaintiff employees who opted out of their union and employer-sponsored health plans received a monetary credit, part of which was deducted as a fee that was then used to fund the plans from which plaintiffs had opted out. Plaintiffs argue that this opt-out fee should be treated as part of their “regular rate” of pay for calculating overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The panel held that the opt-out fees were not part of the employees’ “regular rate” of pay, but rather were exempted as “contributions irrevocably made by an employer to a trustee or third person pursuant to a bona fide plan for providing” health insurance under 29 U.S.C. Section 207(e)(4). View "ANTHONY SANDERS, ET AL V. COUNTY OF VENTURA" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in this lawsuit alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and other claims, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff filed this action claiming disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (RA), hostile work environment under the RA and Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation in violation of Title VII, and failure to accommodate under the RA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the VA on all counts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly concluded that 5 U.S.C. 8461(d) did not bar its review of Plaintiff's claims at summary judgment; (2) did not err in rejecting Plaintiff's preclusion claim; and (3) did not err in granting summary judgment. View "Dixon-Tribou v. McDonough" on Justia Law