Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant Captain Paul Fields of the Tulsa, Oklahoma police department filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants the City of Tulsa; Charles Jordan, the Chief of Police; and Alvin Daryl Webster, the Deputy Chief of Police. The suit challenged his punishment for objecting to an order requiring him either to attend or to order subordinates to attend a law-enforcement appreciation event hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa. He claimed that the punishment violated the First Amendment prohibitions against impairing the rights of free exercise of religion and of association as well as the prohibition against the establishment of religion. He also raised an equal-protection claim. He later sought to amend his complaint to add a claim that his freedom of speech was violated when he suffered retaliation for bringing this lawsuit and a claim that he was denied rights protected by the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA). The district court denied leave to amend and ultimately granted summary judgment for Defendants. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: (1) the Attendance Order did not burden Fields’s religious rights because it did not require him to violate his personal religious beliefs by attending the event; (2) the order did not violate the Establishment Clause because "no informed, reasonable observer would have perceived the order or the event as a government endorsement of Islam;" (3) the Order did not burden Fields’s right of association because it did not interfere with his right to decide what organizations to join as a member; (4) Fields’s equal-protection claim duplicated his free-exercise claim and failed for the same reason; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’s motion to amend the complaint to add ORFA and free-speech retaliation claims because the amendment would have been futile. View "Fields v. City of Tulsa, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Red Cross on her claims, inter alia, of race discrimination and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination based on the Red Cross' decision not to promote her and based on the failure to train her; the decision to suspend and terminate plaintiff was not a result of race discrimination but, rather, because plaintiff failed to meet her employer's legitimate expectations; even if plaintiff was able to show that she had met her employer's legitimate expectations, she failed to show that similarly situated employees committed the same conduct but were treated differently. The court concluded that the district court did not err in granting Red Cross summary judgment on the retaliation claim where plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to show a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment actions taken against her. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the Red Cross summary judgment on plaintiff's outrage claim. View "Robinson v. American Red Cross" on Justia Law

Appellants James Kumar, Ranveer Singh, Asegedew Gefe, and Abbas Kosymov brought a class action lawsuit against their employer, Gate Gourmet Inc., alleging two common law torts and two violations of Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The lawsuit stemmed from Gate Gourmet's employee meal policy, which barred employees from bringing in their own food for lunch (for security reasons), leaving only employer-provided food for the employees to eat. According to plaintiffs, the policy forced them to work without food or eat food that violated their religious beliefs. The meals ostensibly consist of one vegetarian and one meat-based main dish. The employees alleged that Gate Gourmet used animal by-products in the "vegetarian" option, and despite switching to turkey for a meat-based option, the company reverted to using a beef/pork mixture in violation of others' religious dietary restrictions. The complaint, therefore, alleged that Gate Gourmet deceived "putative class members [to] unknowingly eat[ing] food forbidden by their beliefs," and that class members "have faced the choice of eating food forbidden by their sincerely held beliefs or not eating. Those that did consume meals, they argued, suffered offensive touching due to their contact with food prohibited by their beliefs, and suffered distress as a result." The trial court granted in full Gate Gourmet's CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding that the WLAD contained no requirement that employers make reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious practices. The Washington Supreme Court granted direct review and reversed. The Court held that the WLAD created a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practices. With regard to plaintiffs' tort claims, the Court found the trial court dismissed them at the pleading stage, and the tort claims went without analysis. "In light of this fact and in light of Washington's relatively liberal standard for stating a cognizable claim," the Court remanded the case back to the superior court for further proceedings. View "Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, a Muslim and a native of Algeria, filed an amended complaint alleging that he was denied a promotion at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“Department”) based on his religion, race, and national origin. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, the Secretary of the Department, concluding that Appellant failed to rebut the Department’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for rejecting Appellant’s promotion. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded, holding that Appellant’s proffered evidence raised material disputes of fact that would allow a jury to infer that Appellant was the victim of intentional discrimination. View "Ahmed v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Huon, a lawyer representing himself, sued his former employer Johnson & Bell, and its attorneys, for intentional discrimination based on race (Asian) and national origin (Cambodian) in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), and 42 U.S.C. 1981. After remand, the district court granted the defendants judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Huon’s suit was barred by claim preclusion because it arose out of the same “series of connected transactions” as claims that he previously litigated in state court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims mirrored those raised in state court.View "Huon v. Johnson & Bell, Ltd." on Justia Law

Campbell worked at the Forest Preserve District’s Cermak Family Aquatic Center. In 2010, a security camera recorded him having sex with a coworker in the center’s office. Weeks later, the FPD fired him. Nearly two and a half years later, Campbell sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1981, alleging that he was denied progressive discipline in violation of his right to due process; that he was fired because of his race in violation of his right to equal protection of the law; and that his termination violated that statute’s prohibition on racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. Campbell later conceded that his section 1983 claims were time‐barred. The district court dismissed, finding that section 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for violations of section 1981 committed by state actors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 section 1981 provides a remedy against state actors independent of section 1983 and that if we were to allow his claim to proceed directly under section 1981, it would be timely because it would be governed by 28 U.S.C. 1658’s four‐year statute of limitations, rather than the two‐year statute of limitations governing section 1983 claims in Illinois. View "Campbell v. Forest Pres. Dist. of Cook Cnty." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an assistant district attorney (ADA) for the county, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against defendant, the elected district attorney (DA) during plaintiff's tenure, alleging that he was fired for exercising his free-speech rights in violation of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. The district court granted summary judgment against defendants. The court reversed, concluding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on the First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity. A reasonable DA in defendant's position would have known that he could not fire an ADA running for public office for speaking publicly in his capacity as a candidate on matters of public concern when the speech was critical of a program that substantially reduced the DA's office's caseload but there was no reason to believe the speech would negatively impact the DA's office's efficiency. The court reversed the summary judgment on the state-law claims as well. View "Smith v. Gilchrist, III" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department under Title VII after the Department refused to certify him under the Human Reliability Program. Plaintiff claimed that, in denying him certification, the Department relied on the psychological evaluation of a Department psychologist who allegedly recommended against certification because of plaintiff's race. The court concluded that the Department's decision to certify an applicant under the Human Reliability Program was the kind of judgment covered under Department of the Navy v. Egan. The court also concluded that the individual who performed the psychological evaluation of plaintiff was in the category of officials within the Department authorized and trained to make a judgment about plaintiff's suitability for certification. Therefore, the Department's decision not to certify plaintiff was unreviewable and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Foote v. Moniz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. Plaintiff's claims were based on two conversations she had with a coworker where the coworker made racially derogatory and highly offensive comments. The court concluded that the district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's answers to interrogatories from consideration as part of the summary judgment record. The court also concluded that, while in the abstract, continued repetition of racial comments of the kind plaintiff's coworker made might have led to a hostile work environment, no allegation in the record suggested that a plan was in motion to create such an environment, let alone that such an environment was even likely to occur. Plaintiff had not presented evidence such that a reasonable juror could find that her workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. The statements at issue were singular and isolated. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment View "Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp." on Justia Law

Employee Chester Rouse filed a wrongful termination suit against the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) and Daniel S. Sullivan. The petition alleged GRDA and Mr. Sullivan terminated him in retaliation for filing an overtime complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Rouse also alleged the termination of his employment for filing this complaint violated Oklahoma public policy protecting whistleblowers who make external reports of unlawful activity by their employers. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, ruling: (1) sovereign immunity barred Rouse's claim based on the federal Fair Labor Standards Act; and (2) the Oklahoma Whistleblower Act provided employee's remedy for the alleged wrongful termination, not state tort law. Rouse appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly ruled that Rouse failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and properly dismissed this suit. View "Rouse v. Grand River Dam Authority" on Justia Law