Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Rachells, an African-American account executive in the Cleveland region since 2001, received numerous sales awards, consistently exceeded company sales goals by the greatest margin among his co-workers, and, in 2003, earned the top performance review among his Cingular peers. In 2004, Cingular acquired AT&T and eliminated five of nine existing Cingular and AT&T account executive positions. Although Rachells exceeded his 2004 sales goals by a greater margin than in 2003, he received the lowest 2004 performance review score of any candidate for retention and was ranked seventh out of nine in the overall selection process. Rachells was notified that he would be terminated and sued for racial discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to Cingular on all claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that Rachells had produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. View "Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Respondent began employment with Employer in 2005. In 2006, Respondent was terminated for refusing to take a drug test, but he was re-hired one month later. In 2007, Respondent suffered a compensable back injury and later underwent surgery. Respondent filed a worker's compensation claim and later agreed to a settlement for his claim. A few weeks later, Respondent was terminated. Respondent filed a civil action against Employer, asserting discrimination and that his receipt of the workers' compensation settlement was a significant factor in Employer's decision to discharge him. The jury found for Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Employer's motion for judgment as a matter of law; (2) the circuit court did not err in its denial of Employer's motion for a new trial; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in providing a punitive damages instruction to the jury; and (4) Employer suffered no prejudice emanating from a late disclosure of Respondent's recent employment with Walmart. View "JWCF, LP v. Farruggia" on Justia Law

Peoplemark is a temporary-employment agency that used an application form that asked applicants whether they had a felony record and conducted an independent investigation into the criminal records of all applicants. Scott, an African American with a felony conviction, submitted an application and was not referred for employment. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Peoplemark’s attorney stated that clients knew of the policy and some had told Peoplemark not to refer felons. A review of more than 18,000 documents showed that Peoplemark had referred felons to job opportunities. The EEOC sent a letter indicating that Peoplemark had violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(A), based on its conclusion that a companywide policy of rejecting felon applicants had a disparate impact on African Americans. Attempts to conciliate failed. The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Scott and a class of similarly situated persons. Additional discovery revealed that there was no company policy and the case was dismissed. The district court awarded Peoplemark $751,942.48 in fees and costs, including attorney’s fees from October 1, 2009, finding that as of that date the claim was unreasonable. The award also included Peoplemark’s expert fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the award.View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Peoplemark, Inc." on Justia Law

Police officers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, alleging, inter alia, that the Lafayette PD Defendants imposed a "code of silence" to prevent police officers from reporting certain civil rights abuses and corruption within the police department and that these defendants retaliated against them for objecting to these practices. On appeal, police officers challenged the district court's grant of a protective order requiring, among other things, that a particular website they operated be "taken down" in its entirety, which was issued at the request of officials and entities within the Lafayette PD. Concluding that the court had appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, the court held that the district court erred in concluding that the entirety of the website was substantially likely to cause prejudice; the district court's determination that the entire website demonstrated a substantial likelihood of impacting the jury venire was overbroad and clearly erroneous; and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Marceaux, et al. v. Lafayette City-Parish Con. Gov't, et al." on Justia Law

Abercrombie & Fitch appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, on the EEOC’s claim that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a prospective employee, Samantha Elauf in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Ms. Elauf ever informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore a hijab for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice because of Abercrombie’s clothing policy. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie. View "EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer for gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., as well as hostile work environment, unlawful retaliation claims, and state law claims. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in the employer's favor. The court concluded that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of employment discrimination, but it remained unclear as to whether she created a dispute of material fact regarding whether the reason the employer offered for hiring another employee over her was a pretext for discriminatory animus. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer regarding plaintiff's employment discrimination claim, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Kidd v. Mando American Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Secretary of the Department of the Army, alleging age discrimination and retaliation claims. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., federal sector provision applied here, and the court need not decide whether a federal plaintiff must prove but-for-causation or some lesser standard under 29 U.S.C. 633a because plaintiffs' complaint stated a claim for relief under the heightened, but-for standard in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court plaintiffs have stated a claim for which relief could be granted under section 633a where plaintiffs were within the protected class under the ADEA, plaintiffs were qualified for the two newly-created positions at issue; plaintiffs were not selected for the positions; a "substantially younger" employee was selected for one of the positions instead; and one of the officials with decision-making authority over the younger employee's selection said that the department needed "new blood." Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' age discrimination claims and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Leal, et al. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former Arizona state prisoner, filed suit against defendants, alleging that they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131-12134, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. 794, by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability. Plaintiff picked tomatoes for Eurofresh as a part of a convict labor force. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims against Eurofresh were properly dismissed because plaintiff and Eurofresh were not in an employment relationship, and Eurofresh did not receive federal financial assistance. The court concluded, however, that judgment was improperly granted to the State Defendants where they were liable for disability discrimination committed by a contractor. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court to determine in the first instance whether such discrimination occurred. View "Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and others after he was fired from the police department for violating department policies. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that any of the personnel, internal affairs, or disciplinary decisions about which he complained was made by a final policy maker for the City such that municipal liability attached; plaintiff's First Amendment claims failed because he could not establish that his speech played a substantial part in the police department's decision to conduct internal affairs investigations or terminate him; and plaintiff's false arrest, imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims also failed because he has not presented any evidence that he was arrested without probable cause and the evidence could not be read to establish that there was a causal connection between either of the individual defendants' actions and plaintiff's arrest, imprisonment, and prosecution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to all defendants. View "Carter, Jr. v. City of Melbourne, FL, et al." on Justia Law

The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights dismissed Gregg Conitz's complaint against his employer, Teck Alaska Incorporated. In his complaint, Conitz alleged the company discriminated in its promotion decisions. The superior court dismissed Conitz's appeal as moot, finding that the same claims had already been decided by a federal court and that the doctrine of res judicata precluded further claims if remanded to the Commission. Conitz appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior courts decision. View "Conitz v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights" on Justia Law