Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant Officer Patricia Yazzie appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity in this case that alleged wrongful arrest and imprisonment (Count I) and illegal seizure of property (Count II). This case was an interlocutory appeal following the district court's ruling in an action brought by Spero Panagoulakos pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, and 28 U.S.C. 1343. Upon careful consideration of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because "no clearly established law imposed on her a duty to release Panagoulakos following his lawful arrest after [a] traffic stop." View "Panagoulakos v. Yazzie, et al" on Justia Law

Two prison guards had sexual intercourse with Plaintiff-Appellant Stacey Graham while she was in solitary confinement at the Logan County Jail in Oklahoma. The guards confessed and were fired immediately. Plaintiff sought damages in a civil-rights complaint against the two guards and the county sheriff. She alleged a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The federal district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the sexual acts were consensual. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision: "[a]lthough we recognize a need to examine consent carefully in the prison context, this case does not present a factual issue with regard to Ms. Graham's consent." View "Graham v. Sheriff of Logan County, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sara Debord filed suit against her employer, Mercy Health Services of Kansas, for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Petitioner claimed Mercy knew or should have known that her supervisor created a hostile workplace through unwanted touching and offensive sexual remarks. She also claimed that Mercy did not do enough to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, and that, when she finally reported the harassment, Mercy retaliated by firing her. After reviewing the evidence at summary judgment, the district court concluded there was no triable issue of material fact. The Tenth Circuit, after its review of the matter, agreed with the district court: the record did not disclose that Mercy knew or should have known about petitioner's allegations of a hostile workplace, and she did not provide a reasonable explanation for the nearly five years she waited to first report the harassment. Nor was there a genuine dispute about whether Mercy honestly held legitimate reasons for terminating Debord based on its conclusion that she was dishonest and disruptive during Mercy's investigation of allegations about her supervisor's conduct and claims she improperly received extra pay. View "Debord v. Mercy Health System of Kansas, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellee Brandon Blackmon brought a 42 U.S.C. 1982 action against various members of the juvenile detention center in Sedgwick, Kansas, alleging they violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights as a pre-trial detainee when he was taken there as an eleven-year-old. He claimed that the staff regularly used a "Pro-Straint Restraining Chair, Violent Prisoner Model" sometimes as a legitimate effort to stop him from committing suicide, but mostly, as plaintiff contended, to punish him. The chair is equipped with wrist, chest and ankle restraints; as a juvenile detainee, plaintiff was 4'11' and 96 pounds. The district court denied defendants' motion for dismissal based on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants appealed to the Tenth Circuit, maintaining that the district court erred in holding that the facts, when viewed in a light favorable to plaintiff, suggested that defendants sometimes exceeded the scope of qualified immunity. After its review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in all respects except one: the Court directed the district court to grant qualified immunity to defendant Sutton on plaintiff's "failure to transfer" claim. View "Blackmon v. Sutton, et al" on Justia Law

George Roberts said IBM fired him because of his age. He argued an instant message exchange between two of the company’s human resources managers referencing his "shelf life" played a direct role in his eventual discharge. The Tenth Circuit concluded that after its review of the evidence presented at trial, the term "shelf life" had nothing to do with Roberts’s age and everything to do with his workload. "Once its euphemisms and acronyms are translated into English, the instant message conversation unmistakably suggests that 'shelf life' was nothing worse than an inartful reference to Mr. Roberts’s queue of billable work. And that is more than enough to preclude it from amounting to direct evidence of discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act." View "Roberts v. IBM" on Justia Law

Abercrombie & Fitch appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the court’s denial of summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie, on the EEOC’s claim that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a prospective employee, Samantha Elauf in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded Abercrombie was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Ms. Elauf ever informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore a hijab for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice because of Abercrombie’s clothing policy. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment and for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie. View "EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch" on Justia Law

Deputy defendant Johnny Barrientos of the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department appealed a district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment in a 28 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by Lucia Fancher, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Nick Dominguez. Fancher alleges Barrientos used excessive force when he shot Dominguez seven times following a confrontation. Dominguez died as a result of one or more gunshot wounds. Barrientos argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law. The district court granted Barrientos's motion for summary judgment to the extent Fancher's claim arose from the firing of the initial shot, but denied the motion to the extent the claim arose from the subsequent six. The Tenth Circuit concluded after its review that it lacked jurisdiction to hear two of the three arguments Barrientos raised on appeal. The Court was unpersuaded by Barrientos' third argument. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of his motion for summary judgment. View "Fancher v. Barrientos, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Oliver Rojas appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Kenneth Anderson and Nicholas Wilson. Plaintiff brought claims against defendants, both police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 following his arrest for attempting to assault one of the officers. Plaintiff was stopped when he was struggling to enter a house at three o'clock in the morning. Plaintiff told the officers he lived there (and showed that his driver's license listed the house's address), but the officers elected to take Plaintiff to a detoxification center due to his inebriated state. Plaintiff refused to comply with the officer's orders, and made an effort to free his arm from one of the officers' grasp; the officer construed this act as an attempt to hit him. Defendants handcuffed Plaintiff, and according to Plaintiff, after he had been removed from the patrol car with his hands and feet tied, Defendants picked him up and dropped him face-first onto the asphalt, causing him to split open his chin and fracture his jaw. The district court concluded that defendants' act of dropping plaintiff did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights and therefore granted summary judgment in their favor. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Rojas, et al v. Anderson, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Cynthia Pfeifer filed suit against Defendant-Appellee Federal Express Corporation in the District of Kansas, alleging that the company fired her in retaliation for receiving workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff filed suit fifteen months following the termination within the applicable state statute of limitations, but outside the limit of six months enumerated in her employment agreement. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the contract clause was reasonable and was not a violation of public policy. Because no Kansas law appeared to control the outcome of the case, the Tenth Circuit certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court regarding the ability of parties to shorten the applicable statute of limitations by contract, and if not, then was the six-month limitation unreasonable in this case? The Kansas Court responded that the contract clause in question here did violate public policy. Because of that answer, the Court did not respond to the Tenth Circuit's second question. In light of these answers, the federal district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corporation" on Justia Law

During a seventy-two-hour involuntary mental health hold, Ian Wittner was injected with Haldol. He died following the injection. His parents sued defendants the medical center and the treating doctor under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and the parents appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that defendants were not state actors for the purposes of section 1983, and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment. The Court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, affirmed the denial of the parents' Rule 59(e) motion, and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of defendants. View "Wittner, et al v. Banner Health, et al" on Justia Law