Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

O’Gorman worked for Chicago from 1996-2007, as a carpenter and later as a General Foreman, placing city orders with Arrow Lumber, owned by Beal. After an investigation following reports from an Arrow employee, O’Gorman was arrested and charged with theft of city property and violations of City Personnel Rules. The city also pursued a civil case under the Illinois Whistleblower Act and the Chicago False Claims Act, which remains pending. The city issued a press release announcing the charges that he had diverted $50,000 in goods for his own use and tried to cover the theft. Beal pled guilty. O’Gorman’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleged that the investigation improperly focused on O’Gorman and protected Arrow and Beal for political reasons and that Beal covered up Arrow’s fraud; that the Human Resources Director informed a union representative that if O’Gorman did not resign he would be fired and that any hearing would be a sham; and that supervisors told him that if he resigned, he would be reinstated once he was acquitted. O’Gorman resigned, was acquitted of all criminal charges, and unsuccessfully requested reinstatement. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the termination claims untimely and that there is no property interest in rehiring. View "O'Gorman v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Tilley, 59 years old, began working for the Road Commission in 1993. In 2008, Tilley began reporting principally to Bartholomew, the Commission’s general superintendent. After several disputes between the two, Tilley was fired. He sued, alleging termination based on his age in violation of Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. 37.2201, and that the Road Commission interfered with his right to, and retaliated against him for taking, medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601. The district court granted the Road Commission’s motion for summary judgment on all of Tilley’s claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Tilley’s ELCRA age-discrimination claim, but reversed summary on Tilley’s claims under the FMLA. Tilley presented sufficient evidence to create a material factual dispute on his claim that the Road Commission was equitably estopped from denying that he was covered under the FMLA. Because the district court granted summary judgment on the basis that Tilley was not an “eligible employee,” it did not address the other bases on which the Road Commission sought summary judgment on Tilley’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims. View "Tilley v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Road Comm'n" on Justia Law

Heffernan joined the Paterson Police Department in 1985 and became a detective. In 2006, Spagnola, a former Paterson police chief and Heffernan’s friend, sought to unseat the incumbent mayor. Heffernan hoped that Spagnola would win, but was unable to vote for Spagnola based on his city of residence, did not work on the campaign, and did not consider himself “politically involved.” At the request of his bedridden mother, Heffernan picked up a Spagnola campaign sign, to replace one that had been stolen from her lawn. An officer assigned to the Mayor’s security staff observed Heffernan’s encounter with the Spagnola campaign manager. The next day, Heffernan was demoted to a “walking post” because of his “overt[] involvement in a political election.” Heffernan sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. His free-association claim resulted in a jury verdict of $105,000. The judge retroactively recused himself and vacated the verdict. A new judge granted the defendants summary judgment on a free-expression claim; on remand, another judge concluded that Heffernan had adequately pleaded and prosecuted his free-association claim, but found that Heffernan did not establish that he actually exercised his First Amendment rights. The Third Circuit affirmed; claims of retaliation based only on the perceived exercise of those rights are foreclosed. View "Heffernan v. City of Paterson" on Justia Law

The Bureau of Prisons terminated Kannikal on September 3, 1999. In 2001, Kannikal filed a formal complaint with the EEOC, but he did not receive an administrative hearing until 2006. Kannikal’s case was then held in abeyance because it was considered part of a pending class action complaint. In 2007, the Department of Justice informed Kannikal that his case would no longer be held in abeyance. Kannikal asked the EEOC about his case status in 2008 and 2009, but never received a response. He filed suit on March 28, 2012. The district court dismissed, citing 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), which provides that “every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.” The court held that Kannikal’s cause of action accrued on October 17, 2001, 180 days after he filed his EEOC complaint, and expired six years later. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that section 2401’s six-year limitations period does not apply to suits brought under Title VII. View "Kannikal v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Daniels is an African-American educator born in 1950. She has a masters degree in elementary education and is certified as a reading specialist. She sued her former employer, the School District of Philadelphia, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, substantively and by retaliating against her because she opposed what she believed was SDP’s discriminatory conduct in violation of the acts. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the district. She appealed only the retaliation claim. The Third Circuit affirmed. Daniels failed to establish a causal link between her protected activities and the adverse actions; she did not show an “unusually suggestive” temporal proximity. View "Daniels v. Philadelphia Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were fourteen maintenance, domestic, and warehouse workers who were abruptly fired from the Puerto Rico executive mansion shortly after Luis Fortuño-Burset (“Fortuño”), the newly-elected governor, took office. In 2009, Plaintiffs sued Fortuño, Fortuño’s wife, and two executive staffers, alleging that they were terminated in violation of the First Amendment because they affiliated with Fortuño’s rival political parties. The district court entered summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ political discrimination claim. The First Circuit affirmed both the summary judgment dismissals of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim and the denial of their motion to reconsider, holding (1) the record lacked sufficient evidence that Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs’ political affiliations, and thus, Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim failed on that ground; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ request to reconsider the judgment. View "Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ralph Nelson, the former town manager of St. Johnsbury, appealed a trial court decision granting partial summary judgment to defendants, the Town of St. Johnsbury and its individual selectboard members (collectively "the Town"), on his claims of wrongful termination; violation of procedural due process under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983; violation of Chapter I, Article 4 of the Vermont Constitution; and promissory estoppel. In September 2010, the selectboard formally hired plaintiff as town manager after he served briefly on an interim basis. According to plaintiff, the Town's attorney advised him on three separate occasions that he could be removed only for serious misconduct, which the attorney assured was "an extremely high bar." As town manager, plaintiff undertook a major project to renovate and lease the Town's Pomerleau Building. He gained voter approval on a renovation budget and negotiated a lease with a potential tenant. The selectboard contended plaintiff made certain misrepresentations about the proposed lease, which plaintiff denied. Selectboard chair James Rust informed plaintiff that the board had concerns about his performance and gave him a letter stating that the board would be conducting an inquiry. Rust called plaintiff and notified him that the selectboard would be meeting but that plaintiff was not obligated to attend (plaintiff nonetheless attended). When the meeting convened that evening, the selectboard immediately recessed to executive session. After forty-five minutes, the board asked plaintiff to join them, at which time they discussed the lease. The selectboard asked plaintiff if he wanted to resign, and he declined. Consequently, the board returned to public session and passed a vote of "no confidence." According to plaintiff, he did not understand until that time that the selectboard was terminating his employment. Upon review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the trial court's dismissal of the wrongful termination, Civil Rights Act, and state constitutional claims. The Court affirmed the court's dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim and its grant of summary judgment on the qualified immunity defense. View "Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury" on Justia Law

In 2000, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant in her capacity as Treasurer and Finance Director of the Town of Cumberland, alleging age discrimination in hiring and retaliation. After a trial, a verdict was returned for Plaintiff on both counts. Upon motion by Defendant, however, the verdicts were vacated and a judgment as a matter of law was entered for Defendant on both counts. Alternatively, the trial justice granted Defendant’s motions for a new trial on both claims. The Supreme Court vacated the trial justice’s finding on the discrimination claim. On remand, the case was retried before a second jury. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial justice denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in disallowing questioning on portions of a 1999 letter from Defendant’s counsel to the Commission of Human Rights; (2) the trial justice’s refusal to impart a jury instruction on a federal regulation and a state statute did not misconstrue the law; and (3) the judge did not err in now allowing Plaintiff to present evidence of his retaliation claim. View "McGarry v. Pielech" on Justia Law

Flora worked as Luzerne County Public Defender from 1980- 2013. He became Chief Public Defender in 2010, maintaining a private practice. His predecessor had tried to secure additional funding by submitting weekly reports concerning excessive caseloads and staffing deficiencies. Flora obtained grant funding for representing juveniles, but was not able to obtain additional money for adult offenders. Flora reported that the existing level of resources did not allow the Office to provide constitutionally adequate representation. The County was unresponsive, so Flora refused representation to those not faced with incarceration. In 2012 Flora initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of indigent defendants and sought an injunction to prevent his firing. The state court ordered the County to provide adequate funding and prohibited refusing representation to indigent defendants. While the parties were in mediation, the County approved new positions. The funding litigation followed the “Kids for Cash” scandal. From 2003-2008, about 50% of Luzerne County juvenile offenders appeared in court without counsel. Virtually all were adjudicated delinquent. Federal investigators uncovered that judges had accepted kickbacks from for-profit juvenile detention facilities to send unrepresented juveniles to those facilities. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered vacatur and expungement of thousands of delinquency adjudications. Flora alleges that, in 2013, he learned that 3,000 adjudications had not been expunged and reported the matter. Flora was relieved of his duties. Flora sued, alleging retaliation for his funding lawsuit and for reporting noncompliance with the expungement order. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that, under the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision, Lane v. Franks, Flora pled facts sufficient to allege that he spoke as a citizen. View "Flora v. County of Luzerne" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county and the police commissioner, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Because defendants do not challenge them on appeal, the court did not revisit the district court's conclusions that plaintiff's media communications enjoyed First Amendment protection. The court expressed no opinion as to whether plaintiff would have been able to prevail on the basis of his indirect evidence of retaliatory intent; concluded that plaintiff has proffered sufficient direct evidence of retaliatory intent from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between his protected speech and the Department's adverse employment actions and, therefore, plaintiff has established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation; concluded that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle defense; and concluded that the record raises several genuine questions of material fact such that an award of summary judgment in defendants' favor is unjust. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment otherwise and remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. County of Suffolk" on Justia Law