Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against her supervisor, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, alleging that the supervisor violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and claims against the Department under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff's FMLA claims failed because she was not an eligible employee under the FLMA and she had been employed for less than 12 months; plaintiff's FLSA claim failed because she did not plead adequately that the supervisor violated the statute; because plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation, she failed to create a genuine issue for trial on a claim of discrimination under the ADA; and there was no genuine issue for trial on plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FMLA and FLSA claims and the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. View "Hill v. Walker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Andalex, alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under federal and state law, as well as claims that Andalex failed to notify her of her right to continuing health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. 1166 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Andalex and dismissed her claims. The court affirmed the district court's judgment except with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims. Based on the discrepancies between the EEOC statement and subsequent testimony, a reasonable juror could infer that the explanation given by Andalex was pretextual, and that, coupled with the temporal proximity between the complaint and the termination, the complaint at issue was a but-for cause of defendant's termination. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to require denial of the summary judgment motion on the retaliation claims. View "Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Daniel Brown appealed a superior court decision granting summary judgment to the State on his claim of employment discrimination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. He argued that summary judgment was improper because genuine material issues of fact remained as to whether his membership in the Vermont National Guard was a motivating factor in the State's decisions not to promote him, and ultimately to terminate him from his position. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Brown v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Library of Congress' policy, the Library recognizes certain employee organizations and gives them meeting space and other benefits. The Cook and Shaw Foundation is a non-profit organization composed of current and former employees of the Library. The Foundation and others filed suit after the Library denied recognition to the Foundation. The court concluded that the complaint failed to allege that the Library's denial of recognition constituted retaliation for statutorily protected activity by employees or applicants for employment. Absent such an allegation, the complaint failed to state a claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. View "Howard R.l. Cook & Tommy Shaw, et al. v. Billington" on Justia Law

Reynolds, a 62-year-old white male with more than 30 years’ experience with the U.S. General Services Administration, was passed over for a promotion from Building Management Specialist, to Building Manager. Bell, a 32-year-old black employee, got the job over Reynolds and three other candidates, all older than 40. Reynolds sued, alleging age discrimination in violation of the “federal sector” provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 633a; he also claimed race, sex, and retaliation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16. The district court entered summary judgment on the retaliation claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Reynolds dropped his claims of racial and sex discrimination. After trial, the district court rejected the age-discrimination claim for lack of evidentiary support and refused to allow Reynolds to amend his complaint. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the district court’s findings defeated the age-discrimination claim regardless of whether a “but-for “requirement or a more lenient “mixed motives” standard applied.View "Reynolds v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed this action against Respondents, her former employer and former supervisor, asserting retaliation claims pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-108. After the case was removed to federal court, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations period pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-107(c)(3) of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act should apply. The federal district court asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to accept a certified question to decide the appropriate statute-of-limitations period applicable to section 16-123-108 claims. The Supreme Court answered by holding that the three-year statute-of limitations period provided in Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-105 applies to retaliation claims filed pursuant to section 16-123-108. View "Smith v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Eugene, the Police Department (EPD), and others, alleging that they violated his First Amendment rights when they removed him from his position on the EPD K-9 team in retaliation for repeatedly airing concerns about work-related safety issues to his supervisors. The court concluded that the evidence presented to the jury did not reasonably permit the conclusion that plaintiff established a retaliation claim where, as here, a public employee reports departmental-safety concerns to his or her supervisors pursuant to a duty to do so, that employee did not speak as a private citizen and was not entitled to First Amendment protection. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and held that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Hagen v. City of Eugene, et al." on Justia Law

The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) investigated Burkhardt, a correctional officer at LCC and determined that Burkhardt had taken his cell phone inside and used it to make 30 calls from inside the facility, in violation of IDOC policies and of Illinois law. State’s Attorney Hahn filed felony charges against Burkhardt. A few days later, another correctional officer told other employees that Burkhardt was being prosecuted for accidentally bringing a cell phone into LCC. In response, Volkman, a casework supervisor, called Hahn and left a message that “as a citizen” he did not believe that incarceration should be pursued in Burkhardt’s case, and that Hahn should consider allowing the matter to be handled through the IDOC disciplinary process. Hahn called Volkman back. News of the conversation reached the internal affairs investigator at LCC, who investigated. Volkman received a written reprimand and was suspended for five days. Volkman sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he was retaliated against for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. The district court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that, even if they were not, Volkman had not proven his case as a matter of law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Volkman v. Ryker" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the termination of Jeffry Black, the former Executive Director of the Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (POST). Black asserted that the Idaho State Police (ISP) violated two provisions of the Idaho Protection of Public Employees Act ("the "Whistleblower Act") when it terminated him. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ISP, holding that Black failed to engage in activity protected under the Act. Black appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Black v. Idaho State Police" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Wade Frogley appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents Meridian Joint School District No. 2, Aaron Maybon, and Linda Clark, on Frogley's complaint of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Idaho Human Rights Act. Plaintiff also appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents on his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his work as an Assistant Principal at Mountain View High School within the Meridian School District. He alleged that within weeks of his hire, he was subject to continuous sexual harassment at the school from the principal and other assistant principals. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded genuine issues of material facts existed with regard to both of Plaintiff's claims. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Frogley v. Meridian Joint School Dist 2" on Justia Law