Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Yvonne Craddock, an African American woman who was terminated from her employment at FedEx Corporate Services following a workplace altercation. Craddock alleged that her termination was racially motivated, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was presented to a jury, which concluded that FedEx's reason for termination was pretextual, but that Craddock had failed to demonstrate that FedEx intentionally discriminated against her because of her race. Craddock appealed, arguing that the district court had made several errors, including forcing her to bifurcate the liability and damages portions of her trial and excluding testimony and evidence pertaining to events post-termination.The district court had granted FedEx’s motion to dismiss Craddock’s libel claim, Family Medical Leave Act claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, and spoliation claim, but denied dismissal of her Title VII claims. After discovery, the court granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment on Craddock’s Title VII claims. The case was then taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the claims raised by Craddock, and affirmed the jury’s verdict. The court found that the district court's decision to bifurcate the trial was not an abuse of discretion, and that the court's exclusion of testimony and exhibits postdating the termination was not erroneous. The court also found no error in the district court's trial rulings and case management decisions, and concluded that the jury verdict form was not plainly erroneous. The court further held that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors did not deprive Craddock of a trial consistent with constitutional guarantees of due process. View "Craddock v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Ronald Hittle, was the Fire Chief for the City of Stockton, California. He alleged that he was terminated from his position due to his religion, specifically his attendance at a religious leadership event. The City of Stockton, former City Manager Robert Deis, and former Deputy City Manager Laurie Montes were named as defendants. The City had hired an independent investigator, Trudy Largent, to investigate various allegations of misconduct against Hittle. Largent's report sustained almost all of the allegations, including Hittle's use of city time and a city vehicle to attend a religious event, his failure to properly report his time off, potential favoritism of certain Fire Department employees based on a financial conflict of interest not disclosed to the City, and endorsement of a private consultant's business in violation of City policy.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Hittle failed to present sufficient direct evidence of discriminatory animus in the defendants' statements and the City's notice of intent to remove him from City service. The court also found that Hittle failed to present sufficient specific and substantial circumstantial evidence of religious animus by the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court concluded that Hittle failed to present sufficient direct evidence of discriminatory animus in the defendants' statements and the City's notice of intent to remove him from City service. Hittle also failed to present sufficient specific and substantial circumstantial evidence of religious animus by the defendants. The court found that the district court's grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor was appropriate where the defendants' legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Hittle were sufficient to rebut his evidence of discrimination, and he failed to persuasively argue that these non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. View "HITTLE V. CITY OF STOCKTON" on Justia Law

Two employees, Richard Miller and Brent Whitman, filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), alleging they were terminated in retaliation for their close friendship with Cedric Griffey, a deputy warden who was targeted by the MDOC after his wife, Lisa Griffey, filed a complaint and lawsuit against the MDOC for racial harassment. The plaintiffs claimed their termination was a violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA).The Genesee Circuit Court denied the MDOC's motion for summary disposition, which argued that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under the ELCRA because they had not personally engaged in any protected conduct. The MDOC appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the ELCRA did not authorize the plaintiffs' claims.The Michigan Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the ELCRA does provide a cause of action for associational or "third party" retaliation claims. The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged such a claim, stating that they had a close relationship with Cedric Griffey and that the MDOC took adverse action against them in response to Griffey's protected acts. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' firings were part of the effort to retaliate against Griffey, and thus, they had stated a cause of action under the ELCRA. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Michigan Department Of Corrections" on Justia Law

Dr. Jennifer Seed, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed a lawsuit against the EPA and the United States, alleging age discrimination. Seed claimed that she was involuntarily demoted to a junior position as older managers were replaced with younger employees. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA, concluding that Seed had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of age discrimination.The district court's decision was based on its finding that Seed had not provided direct evidence of discriminatory intent that would entitle her to a trial, nor had she provided indirect evidence that would give rise to an inference of discrimination. The court also found that Seed had not shown that she was treated less favorably than younger employees after her reassignment or that her treatment was based on her age.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed Seed's appeal, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of her reassignment claims because she lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The court found that Seed had not demonstrated that a favorable court decision would likely redress her claimed injuries. The court therefore remanded the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the grant of summary judgment and to dismiss the reassignment claim for lack of standing. View "Seed v. EPA" on Justia Law

The case involves Christine Savage, a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the Neptune Township Police Department and others for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2014, which included a non-disparagement clause. Savage filed a second lawsuit in 2016, alleging continued and intensified discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The parties entered into another settlement agreement in 2020, which also included a non-disparagement clause. After a television interview with Savage aired in 2020, the defendants claimed that Savage violated the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.The trial court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, finding that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) barred only non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and that Savage violated a non-disparagement clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the non-disparagement clause enforceable but holding that Savage had not violated it.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. The court found that the LAD protects Savage’s statements. The court concluded that the non-disparagement clause in the agreement directly conflicts with the LAD as it encompasses and would bar speech the statute protects. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. View "Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law

Monica Rongere, a former Diversity Procurement Officer for the City of Rockford, Illinois, sued the city after her employment was terminated. Rongere claimed that she was overworked and underpaid compared to her male colleagues, and that her termination was due to her complaints about this disparity. She brought claims under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and Illinois common law, alleging equal pay, sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.The district court ruled in favor of the City on the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and Illinois Human Rights Act claims, and relinquished jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Rongere appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Rongere failed to identify adequate comparators for her equal pay and sex discrimination claims, did not show that she engaged in protected activity based on an objectively reasonable belief for her retaliation claim, did not present sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment, and did not explain how the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The court also found that Rongere did not hold an objectively reasonable belief that the City paid male employees more than female employees for the same work, which was necessary for her retaliation claims. View "Rongere v. City of Rockford" on Justia Law

Rick Milteer, a disabled veteran and an observant African American Messianic Jewish believer, was employed by Navarro County, Texas, in its Texoma High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) division as an Information Technology (IT) manager. Milteer alleged that he faced discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. His claims were based on his supervisor's refusal to allow him to work remotely while recovering from surgery and during the Covid-19 pandemic, and his subsequent suspension and termination after he discovered a data breach and reported it.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Navarro County, dismissing all of Milteer's claims. The court found that Navarro County was Milteer's employer and that the County had provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Milteer's employment. The court also found that Milteer had failed to produce any evidence that he had informed the County of his disabilities or requested an accommodation from the County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the district court erred in treating Navarro County and the Texoma HIDTA as separate entities and in failing to impute the actions of Milteer's supervisor to the County. The court held that the Texoma HIDTA was not a legal entity capable of employing individuals, and that the actions and inactions of Milteer's supervisor could be imputed to the County. The court concluded that this error impacted the district court's analysis of Milteer's claims, necessitating a remand for further proceedings. View "Milteer v. Navarro County" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, amid pandemic mask mandates and nationwide racial justice protests, Whole Foods Market, Inc. began disciplining employees who wore facemasks to work supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, citing its dress code. The three plaintiff-appellants, Savannah Kinzer, Haley Evans, and Christopher Michno, persisted in wearing these masks, among taking other actions, until the company terminated them, ostensibly for repeated violations of the dress code or attendance policy. The Employees sued under Title VII, alleging retaliation. The district court granted Whole Foods' motion for summary judgment against all three.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that summary judgment was improper against one of the Employees, Savannah Kinzer, an outspoken critic of Whole Foods whose termination arguably deviated from the company's disciplinary process, but affirmed the court's holding as to both Haley Evans and Christopher Michno. The Employees also asked the court to review a discovery order compelling the production of communications whose confidentiality they argue is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The court declined to reach the merits of that issue. View "Kinzer v. Whole Foods Market, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around June LaMarr, an employee at the University of California Davis Medical Center, who was transferred to a different department following performance issues and conflicts with her supervisor. The transfer was initially temporary, but later became permanent, resulting in a decrease in LaMarr's pay. LaMarr sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging that her due process rights were violated as she was not provided a hearing under Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. before her demotion.The trial court found in favor of the Regents. It concluded that LaMarr was not deprived of due process when she was offered the option to either transfer to a non-supervisory position with reduced pay or return to her higher paying supervisory position and face possible termination proceedings. The court reasoned that the Regents never issued a notice of intent to dismiss and that LaMarr's feeling of duress did not trigger due process protections.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District, LaMarr appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the finding lacked substantial evidence. She contended that she was not informed of the adverse consequences of accepting a transfer and that her acceptance of the transfer was not voluntary.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. It found substantial evidence that the Regents did not violate LaMarr's due process rights because she was never notified of an intent to terminate and any demotion was voluntary. The court also noted that a difficult choice is not the same as an involuntary choice. It concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the Regents did not deprive LaMarr of due process. View "LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

Kevin D. Jones, an attorney, held a term position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before transferring to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). At the USDA, Jones primarily provided advice and counsel regarding discrimination complaints filed against the agency and litigated ensuing discrimination claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At the ATF, Jones served as an advisor to the Professional Review Board (PRB) as part of a team of attorneys in the Management Division of the ATF Office of General Counsel (OGC). After three months at the ATF, Jones was asked to resign due to his lack of contract law experience. Jones filed a complaint alleging discrimination and lack of due process in his termination.The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed Jones's administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Judge (AJ) of the MSPB found that Jones was not an "employee" as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) because his positions at the USDA and ATF were not the same or similar. The AJ noted several distinctions between the tasks Jones performed at each agency. Jones did not appeal the Initial Decision to the full Board, so the AJ’s Initial Decision became the Final Decision of the Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the AJ did not err in her determination that Jones's positions at the USDA and ATF were not similar. The court also found that the AJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's appeal. View "Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law