Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Karl Von Derhaar, an employee at the New Orleans Crime Lab, raised concerns about safety breaches and inaccuracies in a drug-testing method. Instead of addressing these concerns, the Lab mandated that all employees, including Von Derhaar, be tested using the disputed method. Von Derhaar requested unpaid leave, and his supervisor, Sergeant Michael Stalbert, attempted to contact him at home. After initially going to the wrong apartment, Stalbert returned with two armed officers. Von Derhaar, standing in his doorway, declined to speak with Stalbert, who then forcibly entered the apartment, claiming it was a wellness check. Despite no visible signs of distress, Stalbert ordered Von Derhaar out of his home, where another supervisor, Lieutenant Kim Williams, awaited. Von Derhaar was then taken to the Police Integrity Bureau (PIB) headquarters against his will.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment to the City of New Orleans and its police superintendent on all claims, finding no municipal liability. On the search claim, the court granted summary judgment to Williams and Officer Khalid Watson but denied it to Stalbert. On the seizure claim, the court denied summary judgment to Stalbert, Williams, and Khalid Watson. These decisions led to the current appeals and cross-appeals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeals regarding the denial of summary judgment to Stalbert on punitive damages, the summary judgment to Khalid Watson on the search claim, and the summary judgment to the City and superintendent. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Stalbert on the search and seizure claims, finding material fact disputes. However, it reversed the denial of summary judgment to Williams and Khalid Watson on the seizure claim, concluding that they acted under orders and did not violate clearly established law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Von Derhaar v. Watson" on Justia Law

Christine Bube and Connie Hedrington, both registered nurses, worked for Aspirus, Inc., a non-profit hospital system. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Aspirus mandated that all employees receive the COVID vaccine, allowing exemptions for religious reasons. Bube and Hedrington applied for religious exemptions, citing their Catholic faith and beliefs about bodily integrity and health. Aspirus denied their requests and terminated their employment in December 2021.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Bube and Hedrington’s Title VII claim, reasoning that their accommodation requests did not sufficiently tie their objections to specific religious beliefs or practices. The court concluded that their objections were primarily about personal autonomy and vaccine safety, rather than religious beliefs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that an employee seeks accommodation because of their religion when their request is plausibly based at least in part on some aspect of their religious belief or practice. Applying this standard, the court found that Bube’s and Hedrington’s requests were indeed based in part on their religious beliefs. The court emphasized that Title VII’s broad definition of religion requires a hands-off approach to defining religious exercise. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bube v. Aspirus Hospital, Inc" on Justia Law

Two healthcare workers, Megan Passarella and Sandra Dottenwhy, employed by Aspirus Health in Wisconsin, sought religious exemptions from the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Passarella cited her Christian belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and expressed concerns about the vaccine's safety. Dottenwhy also referenced her Christian faith, stating that her body is a temple and expressing distrust in the vaccine's development and long-term effects. Both were denied exemptions and subsequently terminated.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed their Title VII claims, ruling that their objections were based on medical judgment rather than religious conviction. The court found that the plaintiffs did not articulate any religious belief that would prevent them from taking the vaccine if they believed it was safe.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that an employee's request for accommodation is based on religion if it is plausibly connected to their religious beliefs or practices, even if it also includes non-religious reasons. The court emphasized that Title VII's definition of religion is broad and includes all aspects of religious observance and practice. The court found that both Passarella's and Dottenwhy's exemption requests were at least partially based on their religious beliefs, making them sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the sincerity of the plaintiffs' beliefs and whether Aspirus could reasonably accommodate them without undue hardship. View "Dottenwhy v. Aspirus, Inc." on Justia Law

Adelina Gabriela Suarez, a nondenominational Christian, was employed by Yakima Valley School, a nursing facility operated by the State of Washington. Suarez requested Saturdays off to observe her Sabbath and additional religious holidays, but her requests were denied due to staffing needs and her probationary status. After refusing to work mandatory overtime shifts and taking an unscheduled leave for a religious event, Suarez was terminated for unreliability.In Yakima County Superior Court, Suarez claimed Yakima Valley failed to accommodate her religious practices and wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, finding that the accommodations sought by Suarez would cause undue hardship and that her termination was not due to religious discrimination. Suarez's motion for reconsideration was denied.The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's decision, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Yakima Valley provided reasonable accommodations and whether Suarez was terminated due to her religion. The appellate court applied a "significant difficulty or expense" test from WAC 82-56-020, rather than the "undue hardship" analysis from Hardison.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and clarified that the correct analysis for an "undue hardship" defense under the WLAD is the substantial burdens test from Hardison, as clarified by Groff v. DeJoy. The court held that accommodating Suarez's requests would violate seniority rights under the collective bargaining agreement, constituting an undue hardship. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the superior court's summary judgment, dismissing Suarez's claims. View "Suarez v. State" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kalitta Air, LLC implemented a vaccine mandate for all its employees. Employees who could not receive a vaccination due to a disability or a sincerely held religious belief could request an accommodation and would be placed on unpaid leave. If they remained unvaccinated after the leave period, they could either voluntarily resign or be terminated. Eleven employees, including five pilots, sued Kalitta under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that the mandate discriminated against them based on their religious beliefs and/or disabled status.The district court found that the Railway Labor Act precluded it from hearing certain claims by the pilots, who were subject to a collective bargaining agreement. These claims had to first go through arbitration as minor disputes. The pilots appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the pilots' claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and thus were minor disputes that had to be resolved through arbitration. The court also held that the pilots' claim of discrimination based on perceived disability would require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and was therefore also precluded by the Railway Labor Act. View "Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Thomas Clobes, a Christian employee at a 3M manufacturing plant in Minnesota, who objected to 3M's COVID-19 vaccination policy on religious grounds. Clobes was told he would be terminated if he did not get vaccinated. He submitted a religious accommodation request to 3M, asking to continue with the same accommodations he had been following, such as wearing a mask and maintaining social distance. 3M did not immediately grant the request and asked Clobes follow-up questions about his religious beliefs and objections to the vaccine. Meanwhile, 3M continued to send daily email and loudspeaker announcements urging employees to get vaccinated. However, the vaccine requirement was eventually lifted due to the Federal Contractor Mandate being enjoined.In the District Court of Minnesota, Clobes sued 3M, alleging religious discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The district court granted 3M's motion to dismiss, ruling that Clobes failed to demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment action or that similarly situated non-Christians were treated differently by 3M. The court also found that Clobes failed to allege any conduct on 3M's part that rose to the level of severe or pervasive harassment, and that there was no causal connection between Clobes's religion and 3M's conduct. The court denied Clobes leave to amend his complaint, reasoning that amendment would be futile as Clobes failed to identify any additional facts that would establish a viable claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Clobes's complaint failed to plausibly support the elements of a hostile work environment claim, namely, that a causal nexus existed between 3M's allegedly harassing conduct and Clobes's status as a Christian, and that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. The court also upheld the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint, as Clobes had not complied with the local rules requiring a copy of the proposed amended pleading to accompany any motion to amend. View "Clobes v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

Samantha Peifer, an employee of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, filed a lawsuit against her employer alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Peifer, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and later became pregnant, requested accommodations from her employer due to her inability to perform certain tasks. Her requests were initially denied, but later granted after she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, she was not allowed to work from home as requested due to her high-risk pregnancy and exposure to COVID-19. Peifer eventually resigned, citing discriminatory treatment, and filed additional charges with the EEOC.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Board's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Peifer could not establish a prima facie case for any of her claims. Peifer appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that Peifer's claims partly failed but concluded that the District Court was best situated to analyze the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on whether Peifer makes out a prima facie case under an adverse employment action theory. The Court of Appeals also concluded that Peifer makes out a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination based on the Board’s denials of her light-duty requests under a failure to accommodate theory. The case was remanded for further analysis on Peifer’s adverse employment theory and failure to accommodate theory, while the District Court’s decisions on Peifer’s constructive discharge allegation and retaliation claim were affirmed. View "Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Tondalaya Gamble, a Black physician who worked at Cook County Health’s John Stroger Hospital for approximately eleven years. Gamble sued Cook County and her former department and division chairs, Edward Linn and Fidel Abrego, alleging race discrimination. She claimed that Cook County violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act, and that Linn and Abrego violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Gamble argued that she was paid less than similarly situated non-Black physicians.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in Gamble’s favor on any of her claims. The court found that Gamble failed to establish that she was similarly situated to her chosen comparators, two white physicians, Bruce Rosenzweig and Karen Fish. The court noted that Rosenzweig was a part-time employee while Gamble was full-time, and that Fish had more experience and was hired to perform different duties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that no reasonable jury could find that Gamble was similarly situated to Rosenzweig or Fish. The court noted that the part-time versus full-time distinction was not dispositive in and of itself, but that other differences, such as their different duties and experience, made them inapt comparators for Gamble’s discrimination claim. The court concluded that Gamble presented no other evidence suggesting that her pay or demanding work responsibilities were because of her race. View "Gamble v. County of Cook" on Justia Law

The case involves an Asian American federal employee, Tommy Ho, who alleged that his employer declined to promote him in retaliation for his previous activity protected by Title VII. Ho had been employed as a criminal investigator in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) since 1999. He filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint in 2015 alleging racial discrimination. In 2017 and 2018, he applied for three promotions but was not selected for any of them. Ho filed two more EEO complaints alleging that these non-selections were due to retaliation. The case at hand centers on Ho's application for a program manager position in 2019, for which he was not selected.The district court dismissed Ho's complaint, holding that it failed to sufficiently allege a causal connection between Ho's protected EEO activity and his non-selection for the program manager position. The court concluded that the ten-month gap between Ho's latest protected activity and his non-selection was too long to support an inference of causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that, when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to Ho, his allegations narrowly sufficed to support a plausible inference that his protected activity was a but-for cause of his non-selection. The court noted that Ho had previously complained about the conduct of the very people responsible for filling the opening, and that he was qualified for the position. The court also noted that the alleged reason for Ho's non-selection was entirely subjective. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Ho v. Garland" on Justia Law

In December 2019, Tonya Huber, a store manager for Westar Foods, Inc., missed work due to a diabetic episode. Shortly after, Westar fired her. Huber sued Westar, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA), and interference with and retaliation for exercising her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Westar filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Huber appealed.The district court granted Westar's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Huber failed to present direct evidence of disability discrimination and that she did not meet her burden under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to show that Westar's reason for firing her was pretextual. The court also found that Huber failed to show that Westar interfered with her FMLA rights or retaliated against her for exercising those rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that genuine issues of fact existed regarding whether Westar's reason for firing Huber was pretextual and whether Westar interfered with or retaliated against Huber for exercising her FMLA rights. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Westar's termination decision was motivated by discriminatory animus and that Westar interfered with Huber's FMLA rights. The court also found that genuine issues of fact existed regarding whether Huber provided Westar with notice of her need for FMLA leave as soon as practicable and whether there was a causal connection between her FMLA rights and Westar's termination decision. View "Huber v. Westar Foods, Inc." on Justia Law