Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Brodzki claimed that during a 2008 traffic stop, an officer from the Topeka Police Department assaulted him by standing between Plaintiff and his car and by âputting his large frame toward Brodzki.â The officer also âdrew a line in the dirt and told [Plaintiff] that he could not cross the line,â which made Plaintiff feel like he was falsely imprisoned. Eventually officers informed Plaintiff that he could leave. Based on that stop, Plaintiff brought a pro se civil rights action against the Topeka Police Department. The district court dismissed Plaintiffâs claim for a lack of personal jurisdiction over the Police Department. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was correct in dismissing Plaintiffâs case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Larry Lauer filed a complaint against the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation and three of its employees alleging Defendants discriminated against him for being disabled. Plaintiff did not explain the nature of the alleged discrimination or how the Defendants were involved. The district court dismissed Plaintiffâs complaint without prejudice, allowing him an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Rather than submitting an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend and for injunctive relief along with a supporting brief. Like the original complaint, these filings lacked any factual allegations relating to the claimed discrimination. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion to amend and closed the case. Plaintiff timely appealed to the Tenth Circuit who, upon review, affirmed the district courtâs order: âeven liberally construing [Plaintiffâs] subsequent pro se submittals as a form of amended complaint, they do not allege any facts that might give rise to a claim for relief.â

Defendant Daniel Cadle appealed a district court order that confirmed an arbitration award against him on Plaintiff Kerry Hicksâs claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendantâs objections concerned whether the dispute was properly referred to arbitration. The district court rejected Defendantâs objections for various reasons, holding that he was judicially estopped from challenging the arbitratorâs authority and that the dispute was properly referred to arbitration. Upon review of the lower court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district courtâs decision, holding judicial estoppel prevented Defendant from raising the arbitration issue on appeal. The Court declined to address issues unrelated to that rationale and dismissed Defendantâs case.

Plaintiff-Appellant Debra Kruse appealed the Commissioner of Social Securityâs denial of benefits, claiming that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in considering her medical source evidence and her credibility. Plaintiff claimed she was disabled by panic disorder, depression, joint disease and foot edema. She applied for Supplemental Security Income, but the ALJ concluded she was not disabled. Upon review of the ALJâs decision and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissionâs determination, finding substantial evidence and analysis to support the ALJâs decision.

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeffrey McFerran appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the Commissioner of Social Securityâs denial of his application for disability benefits. Plaintiff sought benefits based on degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine and associated pain; coronary artery disease; hypertension; obesity; post surgery hernia; knee and shoulder limitations; depression; and anxiety. He had worked for the postal service following 40 years with the Air Force. The Veterans Administration determined Plaintiff was "entitled to receive service connected compensation at the 100 percent rate." An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at the last step of the five-step sequential process for determining disability. Finding that the Commissioner failed to follow the correct legal standards in denying benefits, the Tenth Circuit reversed Plaintiffâs case and remanded it for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick Dorman appealed a district court's denial of his request for an Equal Access to Justice (EAJA) fee. Plaintiff filed his application for social security disability benefits in 2004 alleging that he became disabled on December 30, 2003, due to breathing problems and depression. The agency denied his applications initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff obtained a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) who determined that he could return to his past relevant work and, therefore, upheld the denial of his application. Plaintiff then appealed administratively to the Appeals Council, which denied review of the ALJâs decision. Plaintiff thereafter unsuccessfully appealed the Council's decision to the district court. Plaintiff then appealed to the Tenth Circuit court, raising essentially the same issues he had presented in the district court but this time focusing his argument on the ALJâs failure to properly evaluate his mental impairments. The Tenth Circuit found merit to Plaintiff's argument and overturned the lower courts' decisions. Plaintiff's counsel thereafter petitioned the district court for an award of EAJA fees. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff's EAJA fee motion. Consequently, the Court reversed the district courtâs denial of his EAJA motion for fees and costs, and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motion and to award a reasonable fee and appropriate costs to Plaintiff.

Petitioner Budiyanto Juned, a native and citizen of Indonesia, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision that denied his applications for asylum and restriction on removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner came to the United States on a visitor's visa in 1994 and remained after the visa expired. Petitioner petitioned for asylum and restriction on removal on the basis of his political opinion. The BIA affirmed an immigration judge's (IJ) determination that Petitioner was not eligible for asylum because his application was not timely filed and that he did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances to except himself from the filing deadline. Furthermore, the BIA determined that Petitioner's proffered incidents of mistreatment in his home country did not amount to persecution, nor the likelihood he would be persecuted in the future. Upon review of the BIA record, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's asylum claim due to the court's lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the BIA's determination as to all other aspects of Petitioner's claim.

Plaintiff-Appellant Louanne Cypert brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and several anti-discrimination statutes alleging that Defendant Independent School District No. I-050 of Osage County's (Prue Public Schools) failure to renew her employment contract violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed the District discriminated against her because of her age. The district court granted the District summary judgment, finding that Plaintiff's non-renewal hearing satisfied her Fourteenth Amendment claim to due process, and that she failed to show her speech was the motivating factor that led to the District's non-renewal, and that she failed to show the District's non-renewal resulted from discrimination. In the fall of 2008, the local School Board became concerned about the Districtâs finances. It initiated an investigation and began terminating employment contracts. Plaintiff's contract was one of the terminated contracts. On appeal, Plaintiff proffered evidence of the Board's keeping younger, lesser-qualified personnel on staff at the time of her termination. Upon review of the trial court's record and the applicable authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's proffered evidence of discrimination did not amount to the requisite proof that her civil and constitutional rights were violated. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the District.

Plaintiff-Appellant Terry Winne appealed a district court's order that dismissed his complaint for failing to state a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In 1999, Winne began working for the City of Lakewood, Colorado as an emergency dispatcher. In 2005, he was injured in an automobile accident, requiring that he take medication for headaches. A change in his medication in January 2008 caused him to âsuffer cognitive problems,â and he was placed on intermittent FMLA leave throughout âthe spring and summer.â On August 11, 2008, the City transferred Winne to the police departmentâs records section after a psychiatrist found him unfit for his dispatcher duties. Roughly two weeks later, the City fired Winne, âeven though he still had available FMLA leave.â The City stated âthat the termination was because of his attendance.â Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege the material elements necessary for his FMLA claim. The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his case.

Petitioners Wayne Tomlinson, Alice Ballesteros and Gary Muckelroy appealed the dismissal of their claims against El Paso Corporation and the El Paso Pension Plan (collectively "El Paso") brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs' claims concern "wear-away" periods that occurred during El Paso's transition to a new pension plan. They contended that the wear-away periods violated the ADEA's prohibition on age discrimination and the anti-backloading and notice provisions of ERISA. The trial court found that El Paso's transition favored, rather than discriminated against, older employees; and the plan was frontloaded rather than backloaded. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit's review concluded that ERISA did not require notification of wear-away periods so long as employees were informed and forewarned of plan changes. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision dismissing Petitioners' claims.