Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were employees of Puerto Rico National Processing Service Center (PR-NPSC), run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging that FEMA’s actions in implementing a rotational staffing plan at the PR-NPSC and in eventually closing the facility discriminated against them on the basis of national origin and constituted unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims failed because the challenged actions were job-related and consistent with business necessity, and Plaintiffs failed to show that there were alternatives available to FEMA that would have had less disparate impact and served FEMA’s legitimate needs; and (2) both retaliation claims failed because Plaintiffs did not show that the allegedly adverse employment actions were causally related to any protected conduct. View "Abril-Rivera v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of an electrical union, appealed the dismissal of their claims against their union. Plaintiff alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.621 et seq., violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 411 et seq., the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 141 et seq., and the union’s duty of fair representation (DFR), as well as unlawful retaliation for complaints. The court concluded that the district court erroneously ruled that a union official’s expressions of resentment of plaintiffs’ claims of age discrimination could not evince retaliatory animus existing prior to the time the resentful statements were made. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded with respect to the ADEA claims to which the magistrate judge’s recommendation of dismissal was based solely on the fact that the referral occurred prior to the February 2009 union meeting. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Kazolias v. IBEW" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his disability discrimination and constructive discharge claims against SNS. The court concluded that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable person would not have found his work environment intolerable. Therefore, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to SNS on plaintiff's claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 213. The court concluded that the fact that an employee is disciplined in accordance with an employment policy is not enough to prove a constructive discharge claim under the MHRA. In this case, while one of plaintiff's supervisors laughed when asked about plaintiff's future at SNS and another supervisor told plaintiff that "this" would continue if he did not resign, the evidence was insufficient to create a material factual dispute about whether plaintiff's work environment was intolerable. The court also concluded that plaintiff did not give SNS a reasonable opportunity to resolve any problems with supervisors and plaintiff admits that he never complained about his supervisors during his employment. Therefore, the district court properly granted SNS summary judgment on plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Cosby v. Steak N Shake" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging violation of his due process rights and that defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating his employment. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff does not have a private right of action under the Due Process Clause of the sort recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Therefore, the court concluded that this claim was properly dismissed. However, the court found that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Atterbury v. U.S. Marshals Service" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, five university employees, filed suit claiming that their grievance alleging mismanagement by their supervisor which preceded their termination is entitled to First Amendment protection. Plaintiffs claimed that they were terminated in retaliation for submitting a memorandum to university officials complaining about what they perceived to be poor leadership and mismanagement by the director of the Counseling and Testing Center of Georgia State University. The district court found that plaintiffs' memorandum constituted employee speech on an issue related to their professional duties, which is not subject to First Amendment protection. The court found that the district court correctly concluded that the speech for which plaintiffs seek First Amendment protection was made by them as employees and not as citizens, and on matters related to their employment and not public concern. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Alves v. Board of Regents" on Justia Law

In 2000, Huri began working at the Circuit Court of Cook County. Her manner of dress marked her as a follower of Islam. Huri is from Saudi Arabia. From 2002-2010, she worked as a child care attendant—the only one who was an Arab, and the only one who was a Muslim— under McCullum, a devout (and allegedly vocal) Christian. Huri filed internal complaints regarding McCullum’s behavior. McCullum became aware of those complaints and told Huri that the Chief Judge’s Office was uninterested in — and tired of—Huri’s complaints. McCullum apparently complained about Huri. In2010, Huri was transferred to the Court Reporters’ Office, where, Huri alleges, she was also treated badly and subject to retaliation for filing Equal Employment Opportunity complaints. The district court dismissed Huri’s suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e and under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. The Seventh CIrcuit reversed, concluding that Huri had stated a claim of hostile work environment and that Huri’s superiors were not protected by qualified immunity. View "Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge, Cook County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was fired from Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico, Inc. (SLPR), a non-profit legal services organization where she had worked for nearly twenty-eight years. Plaintiff was sixty-three years old at the time she was terminated. Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint in federal court alleging that SLPR wrongfully terminated her on the basis of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of SLPR. The First Circuit affirmed on the ground that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age discrimination. View "Del Valle-Santana v. Servicios Legales de P.R., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, alleging a claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112-12117, and seeking damages. Plaintiff's claim is based on her employer’s decision to reduce her discretionary bonus after she was absent from work for four months. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant. The court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that denial or reduction of a bonus could not constitute an adverse employment action solely because the employer had discretion whether to pay a bonus. The court further concluded that, despite this error, the district court correctly determined that, even if plaintiff established an adverse employment action, she failed to present evidence that would support the necessary finding of discriminatory motivation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davis v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Edu." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated from his position as head football coach, plaintiff filed suit against the School District under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and related federal laws, alleging that the school district committed racially discriminatory employment decisions. The court concluded that, although plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to infer that he was treated unfairly, he has failed to produce any evidence suggesting that his treatment was on account of his race. The school district argued that it terminated plaintiff because he committed recruiting violations that resulted in ineligible students being enrolled at the high school to play football. The court rejected plaintiff's contentions and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district. View "Flowers v. Troup Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Charlene Deluca filed a complaint alleging defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Longs Drug Stores California, LLC (CVS), had a corporate policy of automatically terminating employees who do not work any hours for 45 consecutive days. Deluca sought injunctive relief to challenge the policy, which she argued discriminated against qualified individuals with disabilities in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Deluca, an employee of Longs, was not disabled, nor had she been terminated under the alleged 45-day policy. CVS demurred to Deluca’s complaint. The trial court sustained CVS’s demurrer based on Deluca’s lack of standing and dismissed her individually without leave to amend, but granted 90 days’ leave to amend for Deluca to find a substitute plaintiff and granted her motion to compel discovery of the names and contact information of current and former CVS employees. CVS filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s ruling. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on the circumstances under which a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief on behalf of a class of which plaintiff was not a member, could obtain precertification discovery to seek out a legitimate plaintiff to support her case. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ of mandate, and found that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the proposed precertification discovery. View "CVS Pharmacy v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law