Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Respondents John Arvanites and Jonathon Burdette, both peace officers employed by the City of Las Vegas, were involved in a disciplinary investigation. A City employee lodged a complaint against Arvanites, and Burdette was notified as a witness. The City referred the complaint to its Human Resources Department, and a human resources analyst conducted the interviews. Respondents, including the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that NRS 289.060 required a ranked peace officer to conduct such investigations.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The court determined that the City violated the Nevada Peace Officer's Bill of Rights (POBR) by allowing a human resources employee to lead the investigation. The court declared that the City must ensure a peace officer conducts any interrogation or hearing in connection with such investigations and enjoined the City from using non-peace officers for these tasks.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that NRS 289.060(2)(d) requires a ranked peace officer to lead any investigation that could result in punitive action against another peace officer. The court found that the term "officer" in the statute refers to a peace officer, based on legislative history, statutory context, and public policy considerations. The court concluded that the City violated the statute by having a human resources employee lead the investigation and upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief. View "CITY OF LAS VEGAS VS. LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASS'N." on Justia Law

Kristen M. Barnett, a former registered nurse at INOVA Health Care Services, refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to her religious beliefs. INOVA had a policy requiring vaccination unless an exemption was granted. Barnett initially received a medical exemption but later requested a religious exemption, which was denied. She was subsequently placed on administrative leave and then discharged for noncompliance. Barnett filed a lawsuit against INOVA, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted INOVA's motion to dismiss Barnett's complaint in its entirety. The court found that Barnett failed to state a claim for reasonable accommodation under Title VII because her objection did not raise issues related to abortion or fetal cells. The court also dismissed her disparate treatment claims under Title VII and the VHRA, finding them duplicative and lacking a comparator.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Barnett had sufficiently alleged religious discrimination for all three claims at the motion to dismiss stage. The court found that Barnett's allegations demonstrated her sincere religious beliefs and that her refusal to receive the vaccine was religious in nature. The court also found that Barnett's allegations supported a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent by INOVA.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Barnett's claims to proceed. View "Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Kimberly A. Ripoli, a decorated veteran, claimed she experienced gender-based discrimination when terminated from her role as Associate Director of the Rhode Island Office of Veterans Affairs (OVA). She sued the State of Rhode Island, Department of Human Services, Office of Veterans Affairs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various Rhode Island statutes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on all claims.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment for the State, dismissing Ripoli's claims of gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. Ripoli did not address the district court's adverse rulings on her retaliation or hostile work environment claims in her appeal, leaving those rulings intact.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court's order on Ripoli's disparate treatment claims, finding that she had established a prima facie case of discrimination and raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the State's reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court noted that Ripoli presented evidence suggesting her role was not redundant, that the reorganization was not driven by budgetary constraints, and that she was replaced by a less-qualified heterosexual male. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on Ripoli's retaliation and hostile work environment claims, as she did not pursue these on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Ripoli v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Dr. Tara Gustilo, an Asian American obstetrician-gynecologist of Filipino descent, was demoted from her position as Chair of the OBGYN Department at Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. (HHS) in April 2021. Following her demotion, she filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently sued HHS, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), as well as a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of HHS, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the race discrimination, retaliation, and First Amendment claims. The court concluded that Dr. Gustilo failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and that there was no evidence she opposed an unlawful employment practice. Additionally, the court found no material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board considered her Facebook posts in its decision to demote her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding that there was a material fact dispute regarding whether the HHS Board ratified the MEC's decision and the basis for it, which included consideration of Dr. Gustilo's Facebook posts. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the posts were protected speech and to apply the Pickering balancing test.The court declined to review the district court's summary judgment rulings on the Title VII and MHRA claims at this time, as they are now interlocutory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Antonio Juarez, Jose Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino City Unified School District following an incident involving Officer Alejandro Brown, a District employee. In February 2018, Juarez found a cell phone and later, Officer Brown, tracking his phone, confronted the plaintiffs, identifying himself as a District police officer. Brown, armed and displaying his badge, demanded compliance, struck Juarez with his firearm, and threatened the others. Brown later pled guilty to assault and battery and threatening the plaintiffs under color of law.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained the District’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found the complaint insufficient to establish that Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment with the District and dismissed the claims of negligence, battery, assault, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the scope of employment is a factual issue that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on demurrer. The court found that Officer Brown’s off-duty misconduct, while investigating a suspected theft and wielding his authority as a peace officer, could be regarded as an outgrowth of his employment. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer, enter a new order overruling the demurrer, and conduct further proceedings. The appellate court also rejected the District’s arguments regarding the Bane Act and found the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. View "Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Ngozi Iweha, a Black woman born and educated in Nigeria, was hired as a staff pharmacist at Larned State Hospital (LSH) in Kansas. She alleged that she faced a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Incidents included exclusion from projects, insensitive comments about Nigeria, and a confrontation with a coworker involving "slave trade beads." She was eventually placed on administrative leave and terminated following an investigation into her workplace conduct.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that the incidents described by Iweha did not amount to a hostile work environment as they were not sufficiently severe or pervasive. The court also determined that Iweha failed to show that her termination was pretextual. The court noted that the employer's progressive discipline policy was discretionary and that the investigation into Iweha's conduct was independent and thorough. Additionally, the court found that Iweha did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation, as her complaints did not specifically allege discrimination based on race or national origin.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the incidents described by Iweha were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The court also found that Iweha failed to demonstrate that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court noted that the investigation into her conduct was independent and that the decision to terminate her was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court also upheld the finding that Iweha did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. View "Iweha v. State of Kansas" on Justia Law

MaChelle Joseph, a former head women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech, and Thomas Crowther, a former art professor at Augusta University, filed separate complaints alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX and other laws. Joseph claimed that Georgia Tech provided fewer resources to the women’s basketball team compared to the men’s team and retaliated against her for raising these issues. Crowther alleged that he was retaliated against after being accused of sexual harassment and participating in the investigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Joseph’s Title IX claims, ruling that Title VII precluded them, and granted summary judgment against her remaining claims. For Crowther, the district court denied the motion to dismiss his Title IX claims, allowing them to proceed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court held that Title IX does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment, reversing the district court’s decision to allow Crowther’s Title IX claims and affirming the dismissal of Joseph’s Title IX claims. The court also ruled that Crowther’s retaliation claim under Title IX, based on his participation in the investigation, did not state a valid claim. Additionally, the court found that Joseph’s claims of sex discrimination under Title VII, based on her association with the women’s team, were not viable. Finally, the court affirmed the summary judgment against Joseph’s retaliation claims under Title VII, Title IX, and the Georgia Whistleblower Act, concluding that she failed to show that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. View "Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" on Justia Law

Jeannine Bedard, a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer, refused to comply with the City of Los Angeles’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and did not sign a notice enforcing the mandate. Consequently, the Chief of Police sought to terminate her employment. The LAPD Board of Rights reviewed the proposed discipline, found Bedard guilty of failing to comply with conditions of employment, and upheld her discharge. The Board also found that the City violated Bedard’s due process rights by not providing sufficient time to respond to the charges and awarded her back pay, which the City did not pay.Bedard filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, arguing that the disciplinary action was procedurally and legally invalid and seeking reinstatement and back pay. The trial court found the termination justified but agreed that the City violated Bedard’s due process rights by giving her insufficient time to respond. The court awarded her back pay.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Bedard argued that her termination was improper because it was based on her refusal to sign an allegedly illegal contract, was too harsh a penalty, and violated her due process rights under Skelly v. State Personnel Board. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Bedard’s refusal to comply with the vaccination mandate justified her termination. The court found substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that Bedard’s termination was not solely based on her refusal to sign the notice but also on her refusal to comply with the vaccination requirement. The court also held that the appropriate remedy for the due process violation was back pay, not reinstatement. View "Bedard v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Several contractors and an employee, who regularly handle public works projects for PennDOT and SEPTA, challenged Philadelphia's requirement for project labor agreements (PLAs) on public projects. These PLAs mandated union recognition and membership, and set workforce diversity goals. The plaintiffs argued that these requirements violated their First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They were ineligible to bid on certain city projects due to their existing collective bargaining agreements with the United Steelworkers, which is not affiliated with the required unions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Philadelphia. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement and failed to show that the diversity requirement caused them harm based on race. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' § 1981 claim failed because race was not a but-for cause of their inability to work on city projects with PLAs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the union-eligibility requirement under the First Amendment. The court determined that the plaintiffs suffered a concrete and particularized injury by being ineligible to bid on city projects due to the PLAs. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot despite Philadelphia's subsequent changes to the PLAs, as the plaintiffs sought damages for past violations and prospective relief.The Third Circuit also found that the plaintiffs had standing to raise an Equal Protection claim, as they demonstrated an intent to bid on future projects covered by the PLAs. The court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and § 1981 claims. View "Road-Con Inc v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

In January 2015, Sarah Schoper, a tenure-track assistant professor at Western Illinois University, suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in high-functioning mild aphasia and other physical disabilities. Despite her condition, she returned to teaching in May 2015, with accommodations from the University. Schoper applied for tenure in 2017 but was denied based on her teaching evaluations, which had declined post-injury. She then filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the University. The court found that Schoper could not prove that her disability was the but-for cause of her negative tenure recommendation. Additionally, the court ruled that Schoper failed to show how her requested accommodation—additional time to meet tenure criteria—would enable her to perform the essential functions of her job.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Schoper was not a qualified individual under the ADA because her teaching evaluations did not meet the University's tenure requirements. The court also found that her request for more time to achieve tenure was not a reasonable accommodation, as it essentially sought a second chance rather than a modification to enable her to perform her job. Furthermore, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Schoper's disability was the but-for cause of the University's decision to deny her tenure, given the multiple layers of review and the lack of evidence showing discriminatory intent by the reviewers. View "Schoper v. Board of Trustees of Western Illinois University" on Justia Law