Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Boston worked at U.S. Steel for 18 years before she was laid off in 2008, along with other employees. While on layoff status, Boston remained eligible to bid on posted positions for which she was qualified. Between September 2010 and January 2012, Boston was awarded, worked temporarily at, and was subsequently disqualified from, three different clerical positions at the plant. Boston claimed that the first disqualification was based on her age (61) and a preference for having a man in the job. Boston filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but did not file suit. After two subsequent disqualifications, she filed an EEOC complaint asserting that she was laid off in January 2012 in retaliation for an earlier EEOC discrimination charge she had filed in October 2010. She later filed suit under Title VII and the Age Discrimination and Employment Act ADEA, with a common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of U.S. Steel. Boston did not present enough evidence to prevail under the direct method, indirect method, or cat’s paw theory. View "Boston v. United States Steel Corp." on Justia Law

While working for Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., Plaintiff claimed a disability arising from her “pregnancy status.” Plaintiff, however, claimed she could perform the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation. Wal-Mart refused Plaintiff’s accommodation request and later terminated her. Plaintiff brought this action against Wal-Mart claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New Hampshire Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart on the ADA claim, as Plaintiff failed to create a trial worthy issue as to whether she could have performed an essential function of her job with or without reasonable accommodation; and (2) Plaintiff’s challenges to the dismissal of her state-law claims of unlawful disability discrimination and retaliation were without merit. View "Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a black male of African descent who had a medical degree from the University of the West Indies, was terminated from his employment with Mount Auburn Hospital while completing the first year of his residency. Plaintiff filed a ten-count complaint against the Hospital and three physicians who supervised his work, asserting employment discrimination and breach of contract, among other claims. The Appeals Court reversed as to the discrimination and breach of contract claims. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgments in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims for employment discrimination and breach of contract, holding that Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment and that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to hear his claims. View "Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the County under Government Code section 12940, alleging disability discrimination based on the County’s removing him from his job as bailiff and placing him on an unpaid leave of absence because of its incorrect assessment that he could not safely perform his duties as a bailiff even with reasonable accommodation. Principally at issue on appeal is how to instruct a jury on the employer’s intent to discriminate against a disabled employee and, more specifically, what role “animus” plays in defining that intent. The court concluded that the instruction and special verdict form in this case contained error. Under Harris v. City of Santa Monica, plaintiff could prove the requisite discriminatory intent by showing his actual or perceived disability was a “substantial motivating factor/reason” for the County’s decision to place him on a leave of absence. The Legislature decided that the financial consequences of an employer’s mistaken belief that an employee is unable to safely perform a job’s essential functions should be borne by the employer, not the employee, even if the employer’s mistake was reasonable and made in good faith. The court further concluded that the instructional error was prejudicial and remanded plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim for a limited retrial. View "Wallace v. County of Stanislaus" on Justia Law

Brian Long sued his former employer, Bo Brusco and Brusco Tug & Barge Inc. (Brusco), alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for opposing Brusco's discriminatory conduct against another employee. The underlying facts were disputed, and centered on Brusco's response to Long's having hired as a deckhand Anthony Morgan, an individual who had a prosthetic leg. Long appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial based on a claim of juror misconduct. As the trial court explained in its order denying Long's motion for a new trial, "it was repeatedly conveyed to the jury that whether or not, in hindsight, Mr. Morgan was discriminated against was not their concern; rather, their focus should begin with the question of whether or not Mr. Long, at that time, had a reasonable belief that Mr. Morgan was being discriminated against." The question before the Washington Supreme Court was whether the juror declarations Long submitted in support of his motion describe actual misconduct by jurors or instead reveal matters that inhere in the verdict. The Court concluded the declarations expose the jury's deliberative process behind closed doors and cannot be considered to impeach the verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court and the Court of Appeals' conclusion that Long was not entitled to a new trial. View "Long v. Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc." on Justia Law

Officer Homoky was under investigation by the Hobart Police Department for officer misconduct and was ordered to submit to a voice stress test, a type of lie detector. He was told that if he did not comply, he would be subject to dismissal. Homoky refused to sign a release form because his participation was not voluntary, and was charged with insubordination and placed on administrative leave. He was later assigned to garage duty, which included scrubbing toilets. Homoky had filed suit, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and abuse of process under state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding no constitutional violation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that forcing him to sign the release form under threat of dismissal deprived him of his right against self-incrimination in violation of the Constitution. The department informed him that any statement made would not be used against him in a criminal proceeding, so it was free to compel him to answer any question, even incriminating ones. View "Homoky v. Ogden" on Justia Law

In 1998, Jackson began working at DRH’s Crisis Center as a mental health technician. RNs were required to authorize patient-discharges. MHTs assisted with paperwork and physically escorting the patient. Before the patient is escorted out, both the RN and the MHT are required to check the patient’s identification wristband and bloodwork to verify that the correct patient is discharged. On September 6, 2013, Jackson assisted with a discharge; both she and the RN failed to check the ID band. The patient returned to the Center voluntarily about seven hours later. At an emergency meeting, Jackson admitted her mistake. Three days later, DRH terminated Jackson’s employment, citing “major infractions” of disciplinary policy. Jackson had consistently received high ratings on her performance evaluations and was apparently never disciplined for any prior infraction. At the time, 14 of 18 nurses were female; nine of 12 social workers were female. Jackson was the only female among 14 MHTs. Jackson claimed that the Center preferred male MHTs for their ability to physically handle unruly patients and filed suit, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Jackson argued that DRH did not terminate male MHTs who made mistakes of comparable seriousness. The Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal of her suit. View "Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hosp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Nichole Wilkins and Beverly Mulcahey sued their former employer, Fred Fuller Oil Company, Inc. (Fuller Oil), for sexual harassment and retaliation. Plaintiffs also sued Frederick J. Fuller, an employee of Fuller Oil, individually Prior to trial, defendant sought to prohibit plaintiffs from asserting claims against him under RSA chapter 354-A in his individual capacity. The district court thereafter informed the parties that it would not allow plaintiffs to assert such claims. Subsequently, Fuller Oil filed for bankruptcy protection and, therefore, the case against Fuller Oil was stayed; the case was reopened as to claims against defendant. Because the questions of whether an employee could recover damages from another employee for aiding and abetting sexual harassment or for retaliation under RSA chapter 354-A concerned unresolved issues of New Hampshire law, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire certified two questions of New Hampshire law to the New Hampshire Supreme Court: (1) whether sections 354-A:2 and 354-A:7 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes imposed individual employee liability for aiding and abetting discrimination in the workplace; and (2) whether section 354-A:19 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes imposed individual employee liability for retaliation in the workplace. The New Hampshire Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative. View "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Fred Fuller Oil Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983, against the School District and the School Board, alleging that they discriminated and retaliated against her by refusing to renew her employment contract and filing an ethics complaint against her. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that the proper framework for examining mixed-motive claims based on circumstantial evidence is the approach adopted by the Sixth Circuit in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., - not the McDonnell Douglas framework. Applying the proper mixed-motive framework to plaintiff's discrimination claims, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her claims against the School District and School Board members Scott Morgan and Mark Nesmith. However, the court found that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's remaining discrimination claims, as well as all of her retaliation claims. Therefore, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Quigg v. Thomas Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Higgins and the Union filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Missouri law against the District, alleging violations of the United States and Missouri Constitutions and state law. The district court dismissed the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise jurisdiction as to the state law claims. The court concluded that the Union does not have standing in this case to pursue its claims on behalf of its members. In regard to Higgins, the court concluded that Higgins failed to state an equal protection claim where the District explicitly reserved the right to award the contract at issue in its best interest, and to select a bidder other than the lowest. The court also concluded that Higgins failed to state a claim for deprivation of due process where, under Missouri law, an unsuccessful bidder obtains no property right in the award of a construction contract, and Higgins failed to state a violation of the First Amendment where it does not provide any plausible account of how the District interfered with Higgins's ability to associate with the Union or with its employees who are members of the Union. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Higgins Electric, Inc. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law