Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff argues that former Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein fired her from her position as a public defender in violation of her First Amendment rights. Finkelstein fired Plaintiff after she made public comments during her campaign to replace Finkelstein, who was not seeking reelection. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed on a political podcast that Finkelstein played golf rather than work, did not hire racial minorities or support black social justice organizations, and had used illegal drugs while practicing law earlier in his career. Based on these comments, Finkelstein terminated Plaintiff's employment after the primary election, which Plaintiff had lost to another employee of the office. The district court granted summary judgment to Finkelstein. It concluded that many of Plaintiff’s statements about Finkelstein were eligible for First Amendment protection because they were made on matters of public concern. But, balancing Plaintiff’s interests against her employer’s interests, the district court concluded that her interest in making these statements did not outweigh the government’s interest in the effective management of the public defender’s office.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s termination cannot support a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The court wrote that it is yet to consider whether and how a public employee’s political campaign to replace her supervisor impacts her interest in criticizing that supervisor. Although the court recognized that an employee seeking public office has a strong interest in criticizing the elected official currently holding that position, the court believes the employer’s interest in effective management outweighs the employee’s interest when the employee’s criticisms are likely to frustrate the employer’s mission. View "Ruby Green v. Howard Finkelstein, et al" on Justia Law

Fitzgerald worked for Roncalli Catholic High School as a guidance counselor and Co-Director of Guidance for 14 years and earned years of stellar performance reviews. In 2018, the school declined to renew her one-year employment agreement, explaining that her same-sex marriage was contrary to the Catholic faith. Fitzgerald was placed on administrative leave. Her Co-director of Guidance, Starkey, informed Roncalli that she too was in a same-sex marriage. The school did not renew Starkey’s employment agreement. Fitzgerald and Starkey brought separate lawsuits, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII.In both cases, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The school fired Fitzgerald because of her same-sex marriage and Title VII prohibits this kind of sex discrimination, but the Supreme Court has held that employment discrimination suits are barred “when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.” Fitzgerald played a crucial role on the Administrative Council, which was responsible for at least some of Roncalli’s daily ministry, education, and operations and “helped develop the criteria used to evaluate guidance counselors, which included religious components like assisting students in faith formation and attending church services.” Fitzgerald held herself out as a minister. View "Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc." on Justia Law

Three installers of window blinds sued FS Blinds, L.L.C., the company for which they worked. The district court granted summary judgment to FS Blinds, determining that Plaintiffs had not met their prima facie burden to show they worked overtime. The court dismissed the case, and Plaintiffs appealed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court held that Plaintiffs have met the lenient standard under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686–88 (1946), and therefore survive summary judgment, at least as to whether, if employees, Plaintiffs worked overtime. The court declined to reach whether Plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors and instead remand for the district court to consider that question anew. The court explained that, based on the record, Plaintiffs have presented enough to satisfy their “lenient” prima facie burden under Mt. Clemens. This is so even though Plaintiffs’ testimony offers only an estimated average of hours worked. In addition to their testimony, though, Plaintiffs offered supporting work orders and some corroborating testimony from FS Blinds. The court wrote that all told, this record evidence hurdles Plaintiffs’ Mt. Clemens burden. View "Flores v. FS Blinds" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B claims, holding that tolling does not apply to the time limits established in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 5, including the requirement that claims be pursued by first filing a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) "within 300 days after the alleged act of discrimination."Approximately one year after his termination, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the MCAD alleging sexual harassment, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4 (16A), and retaliation, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4. Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add his chapter 151B claims. The motion judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, reasoning that this Court's emergency orders issued during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic applied only to courts, not the MCAD, and that equitable tolling did not apply. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that tolling did not apply to the time limits in this case. View "Dunn v. Langevin" on Justia Law

Petitioner is an alien who challenges Exxon Mobil Corporation’s hiring policy as discriminatory. Petitioner received deferred deportation and eligibility for temporary work authorization under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program. While a student at North Carolina State University, Petitioner was recruited by ExxonMobil for an internship. Petitioner told ExxonMobil that he is not a United States citizen, but erroneously represented that he had permanent work authorization under federal law. Petitioner was hired on this basis. However, when he presented his paperwork, it showed he lacked permanent work authorization, and ExxonMobil rescinded its offer.Petitioner claims that ExxonMobil’s policy discriminates against aliens as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. ExxonMobil filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted.The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Section 1981 only protects against intentional discrimination, and Petitioner failed to allege that ExxonMobil intentionally discriminates against aliens. While ExxonMobil’s policy requiring that applicants have permanent work authorization will only exclude aliens, discriminatory impact is not enough. And, given ExxonMobil’s policy, Petitioner did not plausibly allege that ExxonMobil intended to discriminate against aliens. View "Aldo De Leon Resendiz v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a package delivery driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), injured his hip and buttocks. He requested he be allowed to drive his route with a smaller truck that would have a softer suspension or, alternatively, that he be assigned to an “inside job.” However, UPS determined that Plaintiff's route required a larger truck and there were no openings for inside work; thus, UPS offered Plaintiff an unpaid leave of absence until he could return to work.Plaintiff filed a claim, asserting that UPS’s refusal to provide him with the accommodations he requested violated his rights under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to UPS, concluding, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff had not shown that the accommodations he requested were reasonable and that his unpaid leave of absence constituted a reasonable accommodation in the circumstances.The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Plaintiff failed to establish that UPS needed to allow him to drive a smaller vehicle on his existing route and that the leave of absence was not a reasonable alternative. View "Jay Hannah v. UPS" on Justia Law

Appellant filed suit alleging that he suffered adverse employment action in retaliation for unpopular protected speech. Appellant’s complaint alleges that he has been outspoken in recent years concerning the focus on “so-called ‘social justice’ affecting academia in general” and “his concern that the field of higher education study is abandoning rigorous methodological analysis in favor of results-driven work aimed at furthering a highly dogmatic view of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘inclusion.’” In this vein, Appellant identified three statements or communications he made between 2016 and 2018, which, in his view, are protected speech. According to Appellant, he was eventually subject to adverse employment actions in retaliation for these three communications. The district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal finding that Appellant has failed to allege a causal connection between the only communication that is arguably protected under the First Amendment and the alleged adverse employment action. The court held that the survey question incident and the faculty hiring email were not protected speech. Even assuming the “Woke Joke” blog post was protected speech, Appellant has failed to allege that it was a “but for” cause for any alleged adverse employment action. View "Stephen Porter v. Board of Trustees of N. C. State University" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s award of summary judgment to defendant Liberty University, Inc. (“Liberty”) on Palmer’s claim of age discrimination, pursued under provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”)(the “Statutory Ruling”). On the other hand, Liberty, by cross-appeal, challenged an earlier award of summary judgment that was made to Plaintiff, in which the court ruled that Plaintiff was not a “minister” for purposes of the First Amendment’s so-called “ministerial exception” (the “Constitutional Ruling”).   The Fourth Circuit dismissed Liberty’s cross-appeal and vacated the Constitutional Ruling. The court agreed with the district court that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of age-based discrimination to overcome Liberty’s summary judgment motion on that issue. The court reasoned that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that age was the but-for cause of her 2018 nonrenewal. Plaintiff was not meeting Liberty’s legitimate expectations at the time of her nonrenewal in that she repeatedly failed to develop a digital art skillset. And Plaintiff has failed to contend with the fact that the comments she characterizes as evidence of age discrimination — the retirement comments plus the resistant-to-change comment — were made subsequent to the Chair and the Dean having resolved not to renew her teaching contract for the 2018-19 school year. Accordingly, the court was satisfied to affirm the Statutory Ruling in favor of Liberty. Moreover, in light of that disposition — and pursuant to the constitutional avoidance doctrine — the court refrained from resolving whether Plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the First Amendment’s ministerial exception. View "Eva Palmer v. Liberty University, Incorporated" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff twice lost out on a promotion, she sued Union Pacific for discrimination. The question is whether a dispute over the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement required dismissal. Union Pacific to sought dismissal under the Railway Labor Act, see 45 U.S.C. Section 151, et seq., which requires disputes over the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement to go to arbitration. The district court granted the motion to dismiss.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the parties agree that this case does not involve an attempt to “form” or “secure” a collective-bargaining agreement, so it does not fall into the major-dispute category. In a failure-to-promote case like this one, Plaintiff must establish that (1) she “was a member of a protected group; (2) she was qualified and applied for a promotion to a position for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) she was not promoted; and (4) similarly situated employees, not part of the protected group, were promoted instead.” The sticking point is whether she actually applied for either promotion: she says she did, but Union Pacific disagreed. Whether faxed resumes count as applications under the collective-bargaining agreement is something she will have to prove to establish her prima-facie case. Perhaps the best evidence of its importance was the prominent role it played at trial, especially in the questioning by Plaintiff’s attorney. In these circumstances, the issue is one for the National Railroad Adjustment Board to decide. View "Nancy Avina v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

While Respondent was employed as a truck driver at Greatwide Dedicated Transport II, LLC (“Greatwide”), he witnessed certain drivers receive additional driving assignments in violation of 49 C.F.R. Section 395.3, which regulates the maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles. After collecting evidence related to the violations, Respondent submitted anonymous letters to management reporting his findings. Soon thereafter, Respondent revealed to management personnel that he was the author of the letters. The following month, Respondent was assigned to deliver two trailers filled with merchandise to two Nordstrom store locations in Manhattan, New York and Paramus, New Jersey. However, when Respondent returned from this assignment, he was suspended for—what Greatwide claimed to be—violations of company policy. Greatwide subsequently terminated and dismissed Respondent without a more explicit explanation. Respondent promptly filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). Following several lengthy delays, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled in Respondent’s favor, ordering Greatwide to pay both back pay and emotional distress damages. The Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) affirmed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the ARB’s conclusion that Respondent engaged in protected activity, that his activity was a contributing factor in his termination, and that Greatwide failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent would have been terminated absent his protected conduct. Nor was Greatwide prejudiced by the proceeding’s delays. Finally, the court declined to enforce the alleged settlement agreement because the company failed to challenge the ALJ’s decision before the ARB. View "Greatwide Dedicated Transport II, LLC v. United States Department of Labor" on Justia Law