Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants unlawfully retaliated against him after he spoke out about issues involving his employer, the Long Beach Fire Department. The district court dismissed some of the claims against some of the defendants and the remaining individual defendants sought to appeal the denial of their dismissal motion, raising a defense of qualified immunity. The court held, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to consider their appeal because they did not file a timely notice of appeal that specified that they intended to appeal. View "Gusler v. The City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed a grant of summary judgment to her former employer in this suit for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, arguing that the district judge slipped by premising dismissal on disputed facts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff's appeal with prejudice after discussing the circumstances under which appeals will be dismissed for failure to adhere to appellate rules, holding that Plaintiff's substantial noncompliance with important appellate rules were major violations in that they crippled any attempt to review the issues intelligently and constituted sufficient cause to dismiss the appeal. View "Rodriguez-Machado v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his age-discrimination claims under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. 21. After defendant investigated the allegation that plaintiff falsified his work and determined that he had, defendant terminated his employment. Because plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that his age was a motivating factor in his termination or that defendant created a hostile work environment, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The named Plaintiffs, African-American and Hispanic police officers, brought suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants, the Commonwealth and the division of human resources, alleging that the division engaged in racial discrimination through the creation and administration of an examination for candidates seeking promotion to the position of police sergeant. A superior court judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Commonwealth had not waived its sovereign immunity from suit and, in the alternative, that Plaintiffs had failed to state any claim on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court concluded (1) Plaintiffs' claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4(4A) should not have been dismissed because it alleged adequately that Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' right to be free of racial discrimination in opportunities for promotion; but (2) the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed. View "Lopez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Johnson, an African-American woman, age 67, worked for 16 years as a legal assistant at the U.S. Attorney’s Office until her voluntary retirement in 2007.Weeks before her retirement, Johnson had a verbal altercation with another legal assistant, Mosley. Management eventually decided that the office would best be served by Johnson’s reassignment to another floor, rather than by a formal reprimand. Johnson’s salary and benefits did not change. Her duties and some working conditions were altered. She sued the Department of Justice for discrimination based on her age, sex and race. She asserted that the trier of fact could infer discriminatory intent from a “mosaic of evidence” comprised of the DOJ’s arguably contradictory witness statements and from her assertions that similarly situated employees had received preferential treatment. She also contended that she could make out a prima facie case of discrimination because she belonged to a protected class, had met her employer’s legitimate expectations, suffered an adverse employment action when reassigned to the file room and was treated differently than similarly situated employees. The district court entered summary judgment for the DOJ. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Johnson v. Holder" on Justia Law

Porter, a civilian police department employee, worked the “auto desk,” where employees process information about towed, stolen, repossessed, or recovered vehicles, 24 hours per day, seven days a week. In 2005 she was assigned to a group that has Fridays and Saturdays off. She requested reassignment because she was involved in her church. The request was granted. She then requested to work a later shift to attend classes as a student minister. The request was granted. Weeks later, Porter took leave due to a car accident and pregnancy complications. Following three months of FMLA leave, Porter took a medical leave for another six months. She returned and was assigned to the Friday/Saturday days-off group. She was told that her request would be accommodated when an opening became available in the Sunday/Monday group. Between returning to work on July 16, 2006, and November 12, 2006, Porter was absent 34 days, including 16 Sundays. Porter claimed that she was harassed by her supervisors and filed internal grievances. Porter sued, alleging that the city failed to accommodate her religious practice, discriminated against her, and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted the city summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Porter v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against The Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation, Stella-Jones U.S. Holding Corporation, and Stella-Jones, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) alleging that Defendants unlawfully terminated his employment based on his age. Finding that Defendants wrongfully terminated the employment of Plaintiff based on his age, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $2,133,990, which represented compensatory damages for lost back pay and front pay. Denying that age played any role in Plaintiff's termination, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Defendants submitted three assignments of error upon which they contended the motion for a new trial should have been granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corp. v. Rice " on Justia Law

After they were fired from their jobs, Appellants filed suit in federal district court against their former employer (Employer) and against the severance plan (Plan) established by Employer pursuant to ERISA. The complaint asserted federal claims under ERISA, ADEA, ADA, and other federal laws, and also asserted a breach of contract claim, an employment discrimination claim, and an unjustified dismissal claim under Puerto Rico law. The district court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Appellants challenged that ruling as well as a number of the district court's other orders. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no error in the management of this case or the grant of Appellees' motion for summary judgment. View "Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc." on Justia Law

Nurse was fired by Doctor, her supervisor, after she refused his sexual advances. Nurse sued Doctor and her Employer, asserting claims for gender discrimination against Employer and wrongful discharge against Doctor and Employer. Defendants moved to dismiss. The U.S. district court granted the motion as to Doctor, concluding that wrongful discharge claims by an employee are cognizable only against the employer and not against supervisors or co-employees in their individual capacity. On appeal, the U.S. court of appeals certified to the Virginia Supreme Court the question of whether Nurse's wrongful discharge claim was cognizable against Doctor. The Supreme Court concluded that Virginia recognizes a common law tort claim of wrongful discharge in violation of established public policy against an individual who was not the plaintiff's actual employer but who was the actor in violation of public policy, as a supervisor or manager, and who participated in the wrongful firing of the plaintiff. View "VanBuren v. Grubb" on Justia Law

In this sexual-harassment, due-process, gender-discrimination, and retaliation case, the issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether the Circuit Court of Forrest County properly ruled on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Court found that the circuit court properly granted JNOV on the due-process, gender-discrimination, and retaliation claims, but improperly denied JNOV on the sexual-harassment claims. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mollaghan v. Varnell" on Justia Law