Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After Plaintiff’s employment with Butte-Silver Bow County was terminated, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the County alleging several counts. The district court granted summary judgment to the County on most of Plaintiff’s claims. The court, however, denied summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that the County violated Mont. Code Ann. 39-2-904(1)(b), holding that factual questions remained as to whether the County had good cause for Plaintiff’s termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment in the County’s favor with respect to Plaintiff’s claims that the County violated Montana’s open meeting laws and public participation laws; (2) granting summary judgment in the County’s favor with respect to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim; (3) ruling that the County did not discharge Plaintiff in violation of its own policies or for refusing to violate public policy; and (4) concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to a trial on her claim that the County terminated her employment without good cause. View "Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow Co." on Justia Law

From 2003-2008, Cahill did information-technology work for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an independent contractor. In 2011, the agency hired him as an employee, “to support Data Management activities,” including studies for which field workers use hand-held devices called “Pocket PCs” to collect data. In 2014, Cahill filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, 5 U.S.C. 1214(a)(1)(A), alleging that agency officials had violated the whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A) by retaliating for his 2012 disclosures about agency practices, including that the Pocket PCs were outdated, had bad batteries, lost data, and presented data-entry problems. Cahill contended that he was treated differently after that meeting; that he was not invited to BCSB meetings, was discouraged from participating in projects to which he was assigned, was eventually placed on a Performance Action Plan; and that various supervisors treated him and evaluated him poorly. The Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Cahill had not presented nonfrivolous allegations that his March 2012 disclosure was known to at least one of the agency officials he charged with taking the challenged personnel actions. The Federal Circuit​ reversed, finding that Cahill adequately alleged that at least one supervisor knew of his statement. View "Cahill v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Columbia hired Professor Roberts in 1999. Roberts achieved tenure in 2003 and began creating a custom textbook, with the help of a colleague and graduate students. Roberts worked with McGraw‐Hill and used materials from three existing textbooks plus limited original material. The cover page of the custom text states, “Peer review, class testing, and accuracy are primarily the responsibility of the author(s).” The first time Roberts saw the completed textbook was when he purchased it after his students for the 2004 fall semester arrived in class having purchased the textbook. Roberts then noticed several errors, such as omitting the reference to the text. Roberts called McGraw‐Hill, but did not follow up with details. He provided his students with a corrected reference page. Roberts and his colleagues did not use the custom text again due to the errors and its price. Roberts made no further efforts to ensure McGraw‐Hill corrected the omissions. Roberts updated his curriculum vitae twice, listing the text as his publication. In 2011, Roberts, then about 50 years old, had several conflicts with the department chair, which Roberts believed were based on age discrimination. After a plagiarism investigation, Roberts was terminated. The Seventh Circuit affirmed rejection, on summary judgment, of his claims of breach of contract and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621. View "Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago" on Justia Law

Janet Owen, a former University of Kentucky (UK) employee, filed a claim for discriminatory employment practices based on a physical disability with the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights (KCHR). The KCHR dually filed Owen’s claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The KCHR later dismissed Owen’s claim. The EEOC likewise issued a dismissal and notice of rights, adopting the KCHR’s findings and informing Owen that she had the right to sue under federal law. Rather than seeking judicial review of the KCHR final order or pursuing the EEOC’s federal claim, Owen filed an original action in circuit court under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, concluding that because Owen elected to pursue her claim through the administrative process, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Ky. Rev. Stat. 344.270 acts as an election of remedies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that due to a 1996 amendment to the KCRA, there is nothing remaining in the statute to bar claims filed in circuit court despite final and appealable order dismissing the exact same claim filed in the administrative agency. View "Owen v. University of Kentucky" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a wrongful discrimination claim and a wrongful retaliation claim against his employer (Appellee), alleging that Appellee discriminated against him in an employee disciplinary matter because of his national origin and then retaliated against him when he filed a complaint with the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly granted summary judgment upon Appellee’s motion with regard to Appellant’s discrimination and retaliation claims. View "Charalambakis v. Asbury Univ." on Justia Law

This workers’ compensation case involved the statutory attorney’s fees provision declared unconstitutional in the Supreme Court’s opinion in Castellanos v. Next Door Co. Pursuant to the fee schedule in Fla. Stat. 440.34, the judge of compensation claims was constrained to award the claimant’s attorney $19.44 per hour for 90 hours of work. The First District Court of Appeal was compelled to affirm the $1,750 statutory fee award. The Supreme Court quashed the First District’s decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Castellanos, which held that the conclusive statutory fee schedule is unconstitutional as a denial of due process under both the Florida and United States Constitutions. View "Richardson v. Aramark/Sedgwick CMS" on Justia Law

Wells worked as a “computer navigator” at the Winnebago County courthouse, helping pro se litigants deal with the judicial system’s requirements. She claimed that before her departure to take a better job, state and county officials discriminated against her on the basis of her race (she is black) and disability (chronic fatigue syndrome). The district court granted summary judgment to the county, finding any discrimination attributable to state workers and that the record would not allow a reasonable jury to find actionable discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Evidence would permit a jury to find that Winnebago County was Wells’s employer, the entity responsible for complying with federal employment discrimination statutes, regardless of the identity of the person whose acts are complained of, but Wells was treated the same as the other computer navigators, who were white. She did not contend that any supervisor said anything about race or used language with racial connotations. Time off had been granted as an accommodation of her disability and Wells did not substantiate the medical need for any additional accommodation. View "Wells v. Winnebago County" on Justia Law

The Paterson, New Jersey, chief of police and Officer Heffernan’s supervisor were appointed by Paterson’s incumbent mayor, who was running for re-election against Heffernan's friend, Spagnola. Heffernan was not involved in Spagnola’s campaign. As a favor to his bed-ridden mother, Heffernan delivered her Spagnola campaign yard sign. Other officers reported seeing Heffernan at a Spagnola distribution point while holding that sign. The next day, Heffernan’s supervisors demoted him from detective to patrol officer as punishment for “overt involvement” in Spagnola’s campaign. Heffernan filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Affirming the district court, the Third Circuit concluded that Heffernan’s claim was actionable under Section 1983 only if his employer’s action was prompted by Heffernan’s actual, rather than his perceived, exercise of free-speech rights. The Supreme Court reversed. When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and Section 1983 even if the employer’s actions are based on a factual mistake. An employer’s motive, and the facts as the employer reasonably understood them, matter in determining violation of the First Amendment. The harm— discouraging employees from engaging in protected speech or association—is the same, regardless of factual mistake. The lower courts should decide whether the employer may have acted under a neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign and whether such a policy would comply with constitutional standards. View "Heffernan v. City of Paterson" on Justia Law

After he was terminated from his employment Plaintiff sued his former employer and its parent company (collectively, Defendants) alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its Massachusetts analog. Plaintiff also alleged a state wrongful discharge claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its assessment that Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination; and (2) correctly concluded that Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of establishing that his termination implicated a sufficiently important and clearly defined public policy in Massachusetts. View "Murray v. Warren Pumps, LLC" on Justia Law

Maritime employed Elmer Escalante, an undocumented alien, at one of its two full-service carwashes. After Escalante filed a complaint against Maritime with the EEOC for discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the EEOC issued a subpoena seeking information from Maritime related to Escalante’s charges. The parties disagree on how Escalante’s undocumented status affects the EEOC’s authority to investigate his charges. The district court denied the EEOC's application for subpoena enforcement. The court held that the EEOC’s subpoena, designed to investigate Escalante’s Title VII charges, is enforceable. In this case, the plain language of Title VII provides a "plausible" or "arguable" basis for the EEOC's subpoena where Title VII allows any "person claiming to be aggrieved" to file charges with the EEOC, and nothing explicitly bars undocumented workers from filing complaints. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "EEOC v. Maritime Autowash, Inc." on Justia Law