Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case, Plaintiff Jennifer Akridge, a former employee of Alfa Mutual Insurance Company, appealed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Alfa on her claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Akridge had multiple sclerosis and severe migraines, and she alleged that the company wrongfully terminated her to avoid paying for her healthcare costs. Alfa argued that it eliminated her position because her duties were automated and no longer needed, and the company wanted to cut business expenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment ruling. The court found that Akridge failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA. Even if she had, her evidence failed to show that Alfa’s reason for firing her (that her position was no longer needed and it wished to cut business expenses) was pretext for disability discrimination. The court also rejected Akridge's argument that she merely needs to show that her disability was a motivating factor, rather than a but-for cause, of her termination. The court clarified that, unlike Title VII, the ADA does not incorporate the motivating-factor causation standard, and an ADA plaintiff must show that a cause was outcome determinative. Therefore, it upheld the district court’s decision that Akridge did not produce sufficient evidence to suggest that her termination was a result of discrimination based on her disability.The court also affirmed the district court's award of $1,918 in discovery sanctions against Akridge. The lower court found that Akridge's motion to compel a certain deposition was not substantially justified, and the appeals court found no error or abuse of discretion in that ruling. View "Akridge v. Alfa Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was faced with the claims of Cameron Cooper, an employee with Tourette Syndrome, who sued his former employer, Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. (CCCI), under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cooper's Tourette Syndrome caused him to involuntarily utter racist and profane words. He alleged that CCCI failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations and constructively discharged him by forcing him into an undesirable position.Cooper had been working as a delivery merchandiser for CCCI, a role which required excellent customer service. However, his condition led to complaints from customers due to his use of offensive language. CCCI attempted various accommodations, including having Cooper work alongside another employee and ultimately transferring him to a warehouse position with no customer contact. Cooper claimed that CCCI could have accommodated him by assigning him to a non-customer-facing delivery route.The court held that providing excellent customer service was an essential function of Cooper's job and, given his condition, he could not perform this function without an accommodation. The court further held that Cooper's proposed accommodation (assigning him to a non-customer-facing delivery route) was not objectively reasonable because the suggested delivery route did involve customer contact and there were no other non-customer-facing routes available at the time. Additionally, the court found that the warehouse position offered by CCCI was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.As to the constructive discharge claim, the court held that Cooper failed to show that CCCI deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing him to quit. The court concluded that CCCI provided Cooper with reasonable accommodations each time he requested, thus, there was no evidence to support a constructive discharge claim.The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of CCCI. View "Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Albert Collins, who was employed by the Kansas City Missouri Public School District. After the termination of his employment, Collins sued the school district, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation for participating in protected activities. The school district had fired Collins following an investigation into "attendance fraud," a scheme in which Collins admittedly took part. The three claims relevant in this case were racial discrimination during termination in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, retaliation for engaging in protected activities under Title VII and § 1983, and violation of a state law prohibiting public employers from retaliating against whistleblowers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the school district. The court held that Collins failed to provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that his termination was motivated by his race. He failed to demonstrate that a white employee engaged in the same fraudulent scheme was treated differently, failing to meet the "rigorous" requirement that the comparators must have dealt with the same supervisor, been subject to the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct.The court also found that Collins' retaliation claim failed for lack of evidence linking his termination to any protected conduct. His interviews about the attendance fraud scheme were not related to race, and he failed to demonstrate that another employee's claims, in which he acted as a witness, had anything to do with racial discrimination or retaliation.Regarding the whistleblower claim, the court held that a Missouri law excluding disclosures related to the employee's own violations applied to Collins. Since he failed to argue against the court's application of the statutory exclusion, his challenge to the court's grant of summary judgment on his whistleblower claim was deemed waived. View "Collins v. K.C. MO Public School District" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a group of former union members alleged that their First Amendment rights were violated when their respective unions continued to deduct membership dues from their paychecks after they had resigned from the unions. The appellants had previously signed union membership applications authorizing the deduction of dues from their paychecks, with the authorizations being irrevocable for a year, regardless of membership status, unless the member provided written notice of revocation within a specified annual window. The appellants resigned from their respective unions after their annual revocation windows had passed, and the unions continued to deduct dues until the next annual revocation window. The appellants argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, which held that public-sector unions charging fees to nonmembers is a form of coerced speech that violates the First Amendment, should extend to their situation. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that Janus was focused on preventing forced speech by nonmembers who never consented to join a union, not members who voluntarily join a union and later resign. The court further rejected the appellants' due process claims, finding that they had not been deprived of any constitutional rights. The court also dismissed the appellants' contract defenses, finding that they had not alleged that the terms of their original membership agreements entitled them to membership in perpetuity. The court affirmed the District Court's orders dismissing the appellants' claims. View "Fultz v. AFSCME" on Justia Law

The case concerns Sandra Selden, an employee at the Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC), who alleged that she was a victim of illegal wage discrimination based on sex and wrongful retaliation. Selden discovered that a male colleague was receiving a higher salary for the same job. When her employer did not act on her complaint, attributing the pay gap to the male employee's greater seniority and initial higher salary because of his relevant experience, Selden filed a civil rights complaint. She also applied for a supervisory position, but her application was screened out due to her lack of required educational qualifications. The case went to trial and the jury awarded damages to Selden on both claims. DMACC appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the record did not contain substantial evidence of an illegal pay practice. The court found that the pay gap was due to gender-neutral factors, specifically a neutral seniority system, and the decision to hire the male employee at a higher rate due to market conditions and his significant experience. The court also found that the retaliation claim was not supported by substantial evidence, as the employer consistently screened out all applicants who lacked the required qualifications. The court concluded that the lower court should have directed a verdict in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for that purpose. View "Selden v. Des Moines Area Community College" on Justia Law

In the case between Jennifer Harris and FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Harris alleged race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Harris's § 1981 claims were time-barred under her employment contract, making them fail as a matter of law. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict for Harris on her Title VII retaliation claim. In view of Title VII’s $300,000 cap on damages and the evidence presented at trial, the court remitted Harris’s compensatory damages to $248,619.57 and concluded she was not entitled to punitive damages. FedEx was not entitled to a new trial because of the court’s evidentiary ruling. View "Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services" on Justia Law

Clare Mundell worked as a licensed clinical psychologist for Acadia Hospital in Maine. She discovered that her male colleagues were paid significantly more than her for comparable work. Mundell brought a sex discrimination action against Acadia under federal and state law, specifically the Maine Equal Pay Law ("MEPL"). The district court found Acadia liable under the MEPL and awarded Mundell treble damages. On appeal, Acadia argued that the district court erred in holding that Mundell could prevail without establishing Acadia's discriminatory intent and because Acadia claimed a reasonable-factor-other-than-sex defense to explain the pay difference. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the MEPL does not impose an intent requirement on a plaintiff, nor does it permit a defendant to rely on a catch-all affirmative defense such as market factors to explain pay disparity. The court also concluded that treble damages are available for MEPL violations. View "Mundell v. Acadia Hospital Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by workers against Harley-Davidson Motor Company Operations, Inc., and Syncreon.US. The workers, who are Black or People of Color, alleged that the companies created a hostile work environment and aided and abetted racial discrimination in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. The workers detailed numerous racially charged incidents at a manufacturing and assembly facility operated by Harley-Davidson and staffed by workers provided by Syncreon.US. The incidents included frequent racial insults, physical division of workers based on race, and multiple instances of hate symbols and threats found in the facility. The court found that the workers' allegations, if true, could establish the elements of a hostile work environment claim and aiding and abetting claims. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "Matthews vs. Harley Davidson" on Justia Law

Chinyere Ogbonna-McGruder, an African American professor, alleged that her employer, Austin Peay State University (APSU), and her supervisors engaged in racial discrimination and created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her when she opposed their unlawful conduct. She also claimed that her supervisors violated her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim. The court ruled that Ogbonna-McGruder failed to sufficiently allege that the harassment she experienced was severe or pervasive, a necessary element of a hostile work environment claim. The court also found that she did not sufficiently allege that any adverse employment actions were motivated by discriminatory animus, and that she did not adequately assert that the conduct forming the basis of her §1983 claim violated a specific constitutional provision. View "Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State Univ." on Justia Law

April Ingram, an African American woman, was employed as a Program Specialist by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) from 2012 to 2021. She was responsible for the keys to office doors and the money designated for hobby crafts at the Tucker Unit, a prison run by ADC. An inmate broke into the office, and the keys and $359 in funds were missing. ADC terminated Ingram for alleged policy violations, unsatisfactory work performance resulting in property damage, falsification of statements, and theft or mishandling of ADC funds or assets for personal gain. Ingram filed a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination based on her race and sex. To support her claim, she mentioned three instances where a male counterpart was treated more favorably than her in related incidents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed Ingram’s claims. The court found that Ingram failed to provide sufficient evidence that she was meeting ADC’s legitimate expectations and that the circumstances gave rise to an inference of discrimination. The court also noted that Ingram did not allege that any of ADC’s reasons for termination were false or pretextual. She did not sufficiently argue that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. Instead, she provided instances of other employees' misconduct, but these employees were not similarly situated to her in terms of job duties and responsibilities. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ingram's claims. View "Ingram v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction" on Justia Law