Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Catherine Robert had worked as supervisor of released adult offenders for ten years when she developed sacroiliac joint dysfunction. After a lengthy leave of absence, including a period authorized by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Petitioner remained unable to perform all of her required duties, and she was terminated. She appealed her employer's, the Brown County, Kansas Board of Commissioners, decision. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner's discharge did not constitute discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation in violation of the FMLA, breach of contract, or abridgment of procedural due process.

The issue on appeal before the Tenth Circuit in this case was whether the use of a particular desk in special education classrooms was permissible under the United States Constitution. The desks in question wrap around the student on the front and the sides and have a securing bar that runs behind the student’s chair. A student can only remove herself by sliding under or crawling over the desk’s surface when the bar is in place. Ebonie S., a young girl with multiple disabilities, was often required to sit in this type of desk. Ebonie’s mother, Mary S., filed suit on her behalf under 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the use of the desk violated the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the constitutional claims, but denied summary judgment on the statutory claims. Plaintiff appealed the grants of summary judgment. "Plaintiff devote[ed] much effort to arguing that the use of the desk was prohibited under Colorado law and was contrary to well-established educational standards. But it is not our office to decide the lawfulness of the desk under state law or the wisdom of using the desk as a matter of pedagogical policy. . . . We hold only that use of the desk under the circumstances presented did not violate the Fourth or the Fourteenth Amendments."

Petitioner Shahid Iqbal appealed a district court's denial of his motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Petitioner is a native and citizen of Pakistan who acquired lawful permanent residency in the United States in 2002. On July 11, 2008, he filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). On August 17, 2009, he successfully passed a naturalization examination, but the USCIS did not adjudicate his application due to an ongoing background check by the FBI. On June 18, 2010, still having received no decision on his application, Petitioner filed this action. On September 13, 2010, the USCIS denied Petitioner's naturalization application on the ground that he had not met the physical presence requirements for naturalization. Based on the denial, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner's petition as moot. In the alternative, Defendants asked the district court to decline jurisdiction in deference to the agency’s expertise in adjudicating naturalization applications. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that once Petitioner filed his petition, the USCIS no longer had jurisdiction to adjudicate the naturalization application. On April 5, 2011, Petitioner filed his motion for an award of attorney fees and expenses under EAJA, arguing that he was a prevailing party because the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the USCIS for a determination of the merits of his naturalization application. He also argued that the government’s delay on his application and its position on its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction were not substantially justified. The district court denied the fee motion, concluding that Petitioner was not a prevailing party because he had obtained no judicial determination on the merits of his claims, the court had not ordered the USCIS or the FBI to act within a certain period of time, and the court had not retained jurisdiction after remanding the matter to the agency. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny attorney's fees.

Petitioner Mohamed Rashed Al-Owhali, an inmate in a federal high-security prison, brought suit challenging several Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) imposed upon him. The district court dismissed the suit, finding that Petitioner failed to allege plausible facts to support his claims. Petitioner was convicted of several terrorism-related offenses stemming from the 1998 bombing of the United States embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. He was serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. In 2009, Petitioner filed his second amended complaint in federal district court, alleging that these SAM restrictions and others violated his constitutional rights. Petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider and a motion to file a third amended complaint, both of which were denied. He then appealed. On the eve of oral argument, Petitioner conceded most of the arguments he had briefed. In light of concessions Petitioner made before argument, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.

Petitioner Lisa McBride was an accountant who worked as Respondent Peak Wellness Center’s business manager for about nine years. Peak terminated her in 2009, citing job performance and morale issues. Petitioner claimed she was terminated in retaliation for bringing various accounting improprieties to the attention of Peak’s Board of Directors. Petitioner brought several federal and state-law claims against Peak: (1) whistleblower retaliation under the federal False Claims Act (FCA); (2) violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) breach of employment contract; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) defamation; and (6) a federal sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After discovery, Peak moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the district court granted the motion. Petitioner appealed, arguing that significant issues of material fact remained unresolved and that her claims should have proceeded to trial. She also appealed district court’s denial of an evidentiary motion. Finding no error in the district court’s decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed its grant of summary judgment in favor of Peak.

Plaintiff Paul Armijo, former police chief of the Village of Columbus in New Mexico, filed a civil suit against several individual and entity defendants, including Appellants Armando Perales, Arnold Chavez, Adrian Flores, and Mirabel Jimenez. The civil suit arose out of an earlier criminal investigation that resulted in Appellants executing search and arrest warrants against Plaintiff. At the time in question, Appellants were criminal investigators in the district attorney’s office. In early 2007, Appellant Chavez assigned Appellants Jimenez and Perales to investigate Plaintiff on allegations of improper evidence handling, inventory problems relating to both police equipment and evidence, and the mishandling of city funds and impounded vehicles. Around the same time period, Plaintiff reported an alleged battery by the Village of Columbus mayor to state police. A conflicting bid sheet and purchase order relating to a city firearm purchase caused Appellants to investigate Plaintiff’s role in the transaction. In his Section 1983 complaint, Plaintiff raised a number of claims against several defendants, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising from Plaintiff’s report of the mayor’s alleged battery. Appellants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment, holding the search and arrest warrants were invalid and thus Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s false arrest, false imprisonment, and illegal search and seizure claims. Further, the district court held genuine issues of material fact existed as to certain elements of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim and therefore denied summary judgment on that claim. Upon review of the trial court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusions and affirmed the court's denial of summary judgment.

Petitioner Tina Marie Somerlott appealed a district court's dismissal of her claims against Cherokee Nation Distributors, Inc and CND, LLC ("CND") for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Petitioner brought federal employment discrimination claims against CND, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After allowing discovery by both parties, the district court concluded CND was immune from suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and, therefore, dismissed Petitioner's complaint in its entirety. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the court's reasoning and affirmed its decision.

Plaintiff-Appellant Elizabeth A. Bertsch appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Overstock.com, on her hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and appealed the denial of leave to amend to add a disparate-treatment claim, all under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-e17. Plaintiff claimed that working next to another employee "notorious" for viewing sexually explicit videos at work and making misogynistic comments made work a hostile work environment. Despite her "clean" record, she and the offending co-worker were reprimanded for contributing to the work environment and instructed to work more cooperatively. Cooperative efforts ultimately failed, and Plaintiff was eventually fired; the employer elected to terminate Plaintiff because the situation between Plaintiff and the co-worker "was not ever going to resolve itself." Overstock viewed Plaintiff as a "difficult, high-maintenance employee who left the company with no choice but to part ways." Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies prior to bringing her disparate treatment claim before the Court. Accordingly, the Court held Plaintiff could not bring her Title VII action based on claims that were not part of the timely-filed EEOC charge for which she received a right-to-sue letter. Otherwise, the Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the hostile work environment sexual harassment claim (and denial of leave to amend). The Court reversed the district court on Plaintiff's retaliation claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of Jessica Chrysler ("Employee"), appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee The Picture People ("Employer"). The district court granted summary judgment on the basis that Employee could not establish that she was qualified (with or without accommodation) to perform an essential function of her job as a "performer" in Employer's store. It also concluded that Employee's retaliation claim failed because she could not perform an essential function of the job, and that she offered no evidence that Employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. Upon review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit found no error and affirmed.

Petitioners Leroy and Glenda Morris brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Supremacy Clause to challenge the Oklahoma Department of Human Services' ("OKDHS") denial of Mrs. Morris' application for Medicaid benefits as inconsistent with federal law. After calculating the couple's resources and the Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA), OKDHS determined that the Morrises were ineligible for benefits. In an effort to "spend down" their excess resources, the Morrises purchased an actuarially sound annuity payable to Mr. Morris. Despite this purchase, OKDHS determined that Mrs. Morris remained ineligible. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of OKDHS, upholding the agency's application of the Medicaid statutes. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. A couple may convert joint resources (which may affect Medicaid eligibility) into income for the community spouse (which does not impact eligibility) by purchasing certain types of annuities. In other words, a couple may purchase a qualifying annuity payable to the community spouse in addition to the community spouse's retention of the CSRA.