Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Leroy Johnson, a supervisor at Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (Wabtec), was terminated after failing to fully disclose his contact with a COVID-19 positive individual, violating the company's COVID-19 protocols and a Last Chance Agreement he had signed. Johnson, the only salaried black employee at the plant, sued Wabtec for wrongful termination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wabtec.The district court's decision was based on the conclusion that Johnson had not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Johnson had argued that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated white employees, but the court found that the employees he cited were not similarly situated as they were not terminated for misconduct. The court also found that Johnson's failure to fully disclose his potential COVID-19 exposure constituted a safety concern and misconduct, which was grounds for termination under the Last Chance Agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Johnson had not established a prima facie case of discrimination and that his termination was due to his misconduct, not his race or age. The court also noted that Johnson had waived his ADEA claim by failing to address its merits in his opening brief. View "Johnson v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Capen, a former employee of Saginaw County, Michigan, sued the county and Robert V. Belleman, the county's Controller and Chief Administrative Officer, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Capen claimed that his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when he was scheduled for two fitness-for-duty evaluations. The evaluations were ordered after a co-worker reported that Capen had threatened to kill other employees. Capen was subsequently placed on paid administrative leave and later terminated for failing to participate in an "interactive process" meeting to identify potential reasonable accommodations for his work, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that Capen lacked a constitutionally protected interest, that he received the process he was due, and that Belleman was entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Capen's ability to refuse his fitness-for-duty evaluations did not constitute a protected interest under the Due Process Clause. The court noted that while the evaluations were stressful and deeply personal for Capen, he failed to demonstrate that his constitutional rights were violated. The court also observed that compelling circumstances justified the county's decision to require the evaluations, given the reported threats of violence. View "Capen v. Saginaw County, Michigan" on Justia Law

Samantha Howard, a pharmacist with Type I diabetes and hypoglycemic unawareness, began working at Bothwell Regional Medical Center, operated by the City of Sedalia, Missouri. Howard requested to keep food and drink at her desk, which was granted. Later, she requested to bring a service dog into the pharmacy to help her manage her diabetes. Bothwell denied this request, citing potential risks of contamination. Unable to agree on an alternative accommodation, Howard resigned and filed a lawsuit alleging that Bothwell's failure to make a reasonable accommodation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The jury ruled in favor of Howard, awarding her compensatory and emotional damages. Bothwell appealed the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. The court found that the case was governed by its recent decision in Hopman v. Union Pac. R.R., which clarified the definition of "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA. The court concluded that Howard failed to identify any employer-sponsored benefit or program to which she lacked access due to the absence of her service dog. The court ruled that providing a service dog at work so that an employee with a disability has the same assistance the service dog provides away from work is not a cognizable benefit or privilege of employment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Bothwell. View "Howard v. City of Sedalia, Missouri" on Justia Law

The case involves Roman Sharikov, an employee of Philips Medical Systems MR, Inc., who was terminated after refusing to comply with the company's COVID-19 health and safety policies, including a vaccination mandate. Sharikov alleged that Philips discriminated against him because it regarded him as having a disability or a record of a disability and retaliated against him after he objected to the measures.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Sharikov's claims, stating that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that Philips' company-wide COVID safety and vaccine policies did not infringe on Sharikov's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court also concluded that Sharikov failed to plead a plausible retaliation claim because the company-wide policies that he failed to comply with, resulting in the termination of his employment, were in place before he began his alleged protected activity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court agreed that Philips' company-wide COVID-19 health and safety measures did not discriminate against Sharikov under the ADA. The court also found that Sharikov failed to establish a causal connection between his protected activity and his termination, thus failing to state a plausible retaliation claim. View "Sharikov v. Philips Medical Systems MR, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Yvonne Craddock, an African American woman who was terminated from her employment at FedEx Corporate Services following a workplace altercation. Craddock alleged that her termination was racially motivated, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was presented to a jury, which concluded that FedEx's reason for termination was pretextual, but that Craddock had failed to demonstrate that FedEx intentionally discriminated against her because of her race. Craddock appealed, arguing that the district court had made several errors, including forcing her to bifurcate the liability and damages portions of her trial and excluding testimony and evidence pertaining to events post-termination.The district court had granted FedEx’s motion to dismiss Craddock’s libel claim, Family Medical Leave Act claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, and spoliation claim, but denied dismissal of her Title VII claims. After discovery, the court granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment on Craddock’s Title VII claims. The case was then taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the claims raised by Craddock, and affirmed the jury’s verdict. The court found that the district court's decision to bifurcate the trial was not an abuse of discretion, and that the court's exclusion of testimony and exhibits postdating the termination was not erroneous. The court also found no error in the district court's trial rulings and case management decisions, and concluded that the jury verdict form was not plainly erroneous. The court further held that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not deprive Craddock of a trial consistent with constitutional guarantees of due process. View "Craddock v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Ronald Hittle, was the Fire Chief for the City of Stockton, California. He alleged that he was terminated from his position due to his religion, specifically his attendance at a religious leadership event. The City of Stockton, former City Manager Robert Deis, and former Deputy City Manager Laurie Montes were named as defendants. The City had hired an independent investigator, Trudy Largent, to investigate various allegations of misconduct against Hittle. Largent's report sustained almost all of the allegations, including Hittle's use of city time and a city vehicle to attend a religious event, his failure to properly report his time off, potential favoritism of certain Fire Department employees based on a financial conflict of interest not disclosed to the City, and endorsement of a private consultant's business in violation of City policy.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Hittle failed to present sufficient direct evidence of discriminatory animus in the defendants' statements and the City's notice of intent to remove him from City service. The court also found that Hittle failed to present sufficient specific and substantial circumstantial evidence of religious animus by the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court concluded that Hittle failed to present sufficient direct evidence of discriminatory animus in the defendants' statements and the City's notice of intent to remove him from City service. Hittle also failed to present sufficient specific and substantial circumstantial evidence of religious animus by the defendants. The court found that the district court's grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor was appropriate where the defendants' legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Hittle were sufficient to rebut his evidence of discrimination, and he failed to persuasively argue that these non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. View "HITTLE V. CITY OF STOCKTON" on Justia Law

Two employees, Richard Miller and Brent Whitman, filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), alleging they were terminated in retaliation for their close friendship with Cedric Griffey, a deputy warden who was targeted by the MDOC after his wife, Lisa Griffey, filed a complaint and lawsuit against the MDOC for racial harassment. The plaintiffs claimed their termination was a violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).The Genesee Circuit Court denied the MDOC's motion for summary disposition, which argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under the ELCRA because they had not personally engaged in any protected conduct. The MDOC appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the ELCRA did not authorize the plaintiffs' claims.The Michigan Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the ELCRA does provide a cause of action for associational or "third party" retaliation claims. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged such a claim, stating that they had a close relationship with Cedric Griffey and that the MDOC took adverse action against them in response to Griffey's protected acts. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' firings were part of the effort to retaliate against Griffey, and thus, they had stated a cause of action under the ELCRA. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Michigan Department Of Corrections" on Justia Law

Dr. Jennifer Seed, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed a lawsuit against the EPA and the United States, alleging age discrimination. Seed claimed that she was involuntarily demoted to a junior position as older managers were replaced with younger employees. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA, concluding that Seed had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of age discrimination.The district court's decision was based on its finding that Seed had not provided direct evidence of discriminatory intent that would entitle her to a trial, nor had she provided indirect evidence that would give rise to an inference of discrimination. The court also found that Seed had not shown that she was treated less favorably than younger employees after her reassignment or that her treatment was based on her age.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed Seed's appeal, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of her reassignment claims because she lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court found that Seed had not demonstrated that a favorable court decision would likely redress her claimed injuries. The court therefore remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the grant of summary judgment and to dismiss the reassignment claim for lack of standing. View "Seed v. EPA" on Justia Law

The case involves Christine Savage, a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the Neptune Township Police Department and others for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2014, which included a non-disparagement clause. Savage filed a second lawsuit in 2016, alleging continued and intensified discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The parties entered into another settlement agreement in 2020, which also included a non-disparagement clause. After a television interview with Savage aired in 2020, the defendants claimed that Savage violated the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.The trial court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, finding that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) barred only non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and that Savage violated a non-disparagement clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the non-disparagement clause enforceable but holding that Savage had not violated it.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. The court found that the LAD protects Savage’s statements. The court concluded that the non-disparagement clause in the agreement directly conflicts with the LAD as it encompasses and would bar speech the statute protects. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. View "Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law

Monica Rongere, a former Diversity Procurement Officer for the City of Rockford, Illinois, sued the city after her employment was terminated. Rongere claimed that she was overworked and underpaid compared to her male colleagues, and that her termination was due to her complaints about this disparity. She brought claims under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and Illinois common law, alleging equal pay, sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.The district court ruled in favor of the City on the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and Illinois Human Rights Act claims, and relinquished jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Rongere appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Rongere failed to identify adequate comparators for her equal pay and sex discrimination claims, did not show that she engaged in protected activity based on an objectively reasonable belief for her retaliation claim, did not present sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment, and did not explain how the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The court also found that Rongere did not hold an objectively reasonable belief that the City paid male employees more than female employees for the same work, which was necessary for her retaliation claims. View "Rongere v. City of Rockford" on Justia Law