Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, including a state commission and two tenants, alleged that the owner and management of an apartment complex discriminated against them by refusing to allow two emotional support dogs, despite a general no-pet policy. The tenants had previously lived at another complex that allowed both dogs as emotional support animals. Upon applying to the new complex, they provided documentation for the accommodation, but the defendants only approved one dog and requested further justification for the second. After the tenants objected to the additional requests, the defendants cancelled their lease and refunded their payments. The tenants subsequently found other housing.The Superior Court found for the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants had discriminated against the tenants by constructively denying their request for a reasonable accommodation, in violation of Connecticut's fair housing law. The court determined that the tenants had established the required elements for a failure-to-accommodate claim, specifically finding that one plaintiff was “regarded as” having a mental disability by the defendants.The defendants appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Appellate Court found that, although the plaintiff was regarded as having a disability, there was insufficient proof that the second dog was necessary for equal use and enjoyment of the dwelling. The Appellate Court also interpreted the trial court’s findings as implicitly determining that the plaintiff had a "record of" a disability.On further appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the trial court’s judgment but vacated portions of the Appellate Court’s decision that addressed whether there was a “record of” disability and the legal standard for “necessity” of an accommodation. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that, because the trial court only found the plaintiff was "regarded as" having a disability, she was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation. View "Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC" on Justia Law

A public hospital district in California established and recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in 1991 for a common interest development known as the Tulare Medical Center. These CC&Rs included a prohibition on abortion clinics within the development. In 2001, certain property subject to these CC&Rs was transferred to individual owners, who later sought to lease it to a family planning organization that provides a range of services, including abortion. The property owners association, comprised of all parcel owners and authorized to enforce the CC&Rs, objected to the lease and sought to enjoin the operation of the clinic, arguing that any abortion services would violate the CC&Rs.The Superior Court of Tulare County reviewed the association’s request for a preliminary injunction. After considering the parties’ submissions and arguments, the court denied the injunction. The court found there was a credible threat that abortion services would be provided but concluded the association had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Specifically, the trial court noted unresolved legal questions regarding whether restrictions on abortion clinics in CC&Rs violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California constitutional protections, and found the association failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms favored an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the prohibition on abortion clinics, adopted by a public entity, constituted government action that interfered with the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive choice under the California Constitution. The court applied the compelling interest test, found no compelling interest justifying the restriction, and concluded the prohibition violated fundamental public policy. Additionally, the court held that the prohibition was void under Civil Code section 53 because it indirectly limited property use based on a characteristic protected by the Unruh Act. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Tulare Medical Center Property v. Valdivia" on Justia Law

A condominium unit was owned by Diane Marchetti, who did not reside in the unit but allowed her daughter, Caroline Thibeault, and Thibeault’s son to occupy it. The condominium’s association initiated a foreclosure action against Marchetti alleging she was in default for failing to pay assessments, fines, and fees—some of which related to Thibeault’s alleged commercial use of the unit. Thibeault’s son has a disability, and both Thibeault and Marchetti asserted that the association had failed to provide reasonable accommodation under federal and state disability laws.After the foreclosure action commenced in the Sagadahoc County Superior Court, Marchetti filed an answer and raised several defenses, including alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act. Thibeault, who was not a party to the action, then moved to intervene, claiming both a direct interest in the property and statutory civil rights at stake. She sought intervention as of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention, arguing her interests were not adequately represented and that her defenses raised common questions of law and fact with the main action. The Superior Court denied her motion to intervene on both grounds, finding her interest insufficient and noting that her mother’s defenses already encompassed her concerns.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the order denying intervention. The court held that Thibeault did not satisfy the criteria for intervention as of right under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because she lacked a direct, legally protectable interest in the foreclosure action, her ability to protect her interests would not be impaired by denial, and her interests were adequately represented by Marchetti. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because Thibeault’s participation would be duplicative and cause undue delay. The order denying intervention was affirmed. View "Oak Hill Condominiums v. Marchetti" on Justia Law

A company sought to erect a digital billboard in a small Ohio municipality but was prevented from doing so by the local billboard ordinance, which included restrictions on size, location, and type of billboards permitted. The ordinance specifically banned “variable message” (digital) signs and implemented a “cap and replace” rule, allowing new billboards only if older ones were removed. The ordinance also contained several exemptions, including one for “public service” signs, which were allowed to display information like time or weather if not used for advertising.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the municipality, upholding the ordinance against the company’s First Amendment challenges. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the exemption for public service signs was an unconstitutional, content-based restriction under the First Amendment, but remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the invalid exemption was severable from the rest of the ordinance.On remand, the district court found that the unconstitutional provision could be severed and that the remainder of the ordinance survived intermediate scrutiny, granting judgment again in favor of the municipality. The company appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the public-service exemption was severable under Ohio law, applying the three-part test from Geiger v. Geiger. The court further held that the remaining provisions of the ordinance were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny because they were narrowly tailored to significant governmental interests such as traffic safety and aesthetics. The court also held that the company was not entitled to damages or attorney fees, as it was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). View "Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Village of St. Bernard" on Justia Law

A black-owned construction company was not invited to bid as general contractor on a major Boston public housing redevelopment project after participating in pre-construction work. Years earlier, the developer had called the company’s president to discuss possible involvement, but the parties disputed what promises, if any, were made during that conversation. The construction company performed pre-construction work and was later selected as general contractor for the first phase (Camden), but after performance and communication issues arose during that project, the developer chose a different, white-owned company for the second phase (Lenox). The construction company did not protest at the time but later sued, alleging breach of contract, quasi-contract, violation of Massachusetts consumer protection law, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.The matter was first brought in Massachusetts state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on federal question jurisdiction. After discovery, the developer moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the developer, finding no enforceable contract or promise had been made regarding the Lenox phase, that the quasi-contract and Chapter 93A claims failed as derivative, and that there was insufficient evidence of racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The First Circuit held that the summary judgment record did not contain evidence from which a reasonable jury could find an enforceable implied-in-fact contract or a promise sufficient for promissory estoppel. It further held that the plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext or discriminatory intent under § 1981, given the legitimate business reasons cited for the company’s exclusion. Thus, summary judgment on all claims was proper. View "John B. Cruz Construction Co. v. Beacon Communities Corp." on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law

Soscia Holdings, LLC operated the Flat River Reservoir Dam in Rhode Island. In July 2022, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), acting under state law, ordered Soscia to reduce the Dam’s water flow to maintain specific water levels in Johnson’s Pond. Soscia was later assessed monetary penalties by DEM for alleged violations of the permitting statute. During these proceedings, the Town of Coventry condemned the Dam and Johnson’s Pond, paying Soscia just compensation for the property.The case was first reviewed by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. This court dismissed all claims against the State of Rhode Island and DEM based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court also dismissed the § 1983 individual capacity claims against two DEM officials on the grounds of qualified immunity, and rejected Soscia’s claim under the Rhode Island Constitution. However, the court allowed § 1983 official capacity claims for prospective injunctive relief against the DEM officials to proceed. After Soscia amended its complaint, the district court ultimately dismissed the remaining federal constitutional claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the appeal. Soscia argued that it continued to face ongoing enforcement actions and monetary penalties, and thus maintained a property interest and the right to seek injunctive and declaratory relief. The First Circuit found that the district court’s opinions thoroughly and correctly explained why Soscia’s federal claims failed to state a plausible claim for relief, and that new arguments raised on appeal were either waived or did not meet the standard for plain error review. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Soscia Holdings, LLC v. Rhode Island" on Justia Law

HRT Enterprises owned an 11.8-acre parcel adjacent to Detroit’s Coleman A. Young International Airport, with about 20 percent of the property falling within a regulated runway “visibility zone” that restricted development. Over time, the City of Detroit acquired other properties in a nearby area for airport compliance but did not purchase HRT’s. By late 2008, HRT’s property had become vacant and vandalized, and HRT alleged it could no longer use, lease, or sell the property due to City actions and regulatory restrictions.HRT first sued the City in Michigan state court in 2002, alleging inverse condemnation, but the jury found for the City; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In 2008, HRT sued in federal court, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the action without prejudice because HRT had not exhausted state remedies. HRT then filed a second state suit in 2009, which was dismissed on res judicata grounds; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. HRT did not seek further review.In 2012, HRT filed the present action in federal court, alleging a de facto taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the City’s preclusion arguments, granted summary judgment to HRT on liability, and held that a taking had occurred, leaving the date for the jury. A first jury found the taking occurred in 2009 and awarded $4.25 million; the court ordered remittitur to $2 million, then a second jury, after a new trial, awarded $1.97 million.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that HRT’s claim was ripe, not barred by claim or issue preclusion, that the district court properly granted summary judgment on liability, and that its remittitur decision was not an abuse of discretion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

Jay and Kendall Nygard, who have had a long history of disputes with the City of Orono regarding property matters, became involved in a conflict when Jay replaced their driveway without obtaining a permit as required by city code. Throughout the permitting process and subsequent communications with the City, Kendall was copied on email exchanges but did not perform the driveway work herself. After efforts by city officials to secure compliance failed, both Jay and Kendall were referred for prosecution for violating the permit requirement. However, a state court later dismissed the charge against Kendall, finding that the ordinance required only the person actually performing the work to obtain the permit, and Jay, not Kendall, had done the work.Following this dismissal, Kendall and Jay brought federal claims against the City, including a malicious prosecution claim. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed all claims, but on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed Kendall’s malicious prosecution claim to proceed, finding her complaint sufficiently alleged the City lacked probable cause. On remand, the district court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction. Kendall then filed a new malicious prosecution claim based on diversity jurisdiction, but the district court again granted summary judgment to the City, concluding Kendall could not prove the City acted with malicious intent.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court held that Kendall failed to offer evidence that the City knowingly and willfully instituted a groundless prosecution against her, as required to establish malicious intent under Minnesota law. The court found that, even if probable cause was lacking, there was no evidence of malice, and that any deficiency in probable cause was not so blatant as to permit an inference of malicious intent. The judgment in favor of the City was therefore affirmed. View "Nygard v. City of Orono" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a university in Nebraska instituted a policy requiring all students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline, with the only exemptions allowed for medical reasons or until a vaccine received full FDA approval. Religious exemptions were not permitted. Students who failed to comply were unenrolled and barred from campus, and some had holds placed on their accounts, preventing access to transcripts. One student complied with the mandate but suffered adverse effects and was medically exempted from further doses. Another student withdrew voluntarily before the deadline.After the university enforced the mandate, several students sought injunctive relief in the District Court for Douglas County to prevent their unenrollment, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court denied relief, finding that any contract included the Emergency Use Authorization waiver agreements and that the students breached the contract by not being vaccinated after FDA approval. An initial appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Supreme Court for lack of a final, appealable order. The students then consolidated their actions and filed an operative complaint alleging breach of implied contract, denial of due process, conversion, negligence, and violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and found that the students plausibly alleged claims for breach of an implied contract and conversion, based on the university’s unilateral modification of conditions mid-semester and the withholding of transcripts. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence and NCPA claims, finding them preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, and held that the due process claim was abandoned on appeal. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract and conversion claims. View "Ramaekers v. Creighton University" on Justia Law