Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs appealed from a grant of summary judgment dismissing their challenge to the legislative prayer practice at Town Board meetings in the Town of Greece, New York. Since 1999, the town has begun its Town Board meetings with a short prayer. The court held that the district court erred in rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the town's prayer practice affiliated the town with a single creed, Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff, a follower of Islam, was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York (FCI Otisville). Plaintiff's religious beliefs required participation in congregational prayer five times a day but under the FCI Otisville policy, the prison chapel was available only once a day and no other space within the facility was made available to plaintiff and others in his faith. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims that defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, based on a finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning his congregational prayer policy claim. Because the court found that plaintiff did indeed exhaust his administrative remedies, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the district court dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiffs argued that New York's Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 (Kosher Act), N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law 201-a-201-d, violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The court held that the Kosher Act did not violate the Establishment Clause because it neither advanced or impeded religion, had a secular purpose, and did not create an excessive entanglement between state and religion. The court further held that the Kosher Act did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because it was neutral, generally applicable, minimally burdensome, and had a rational basis. Finally, even under the strictest scrutiny, the inspection provision was not void for vagueness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff Townsend alleged that she was sexually harassed by defendant, who was the husband of the President of her company, the sole corporate Vice President, as well as a shareholder of the company. Before Plaintiff Grey-Allen, the Human Resources Director of the company, completed an internal investigation of these allegations, she was fired by defendants. On appeal, the parties challenged the decisions of the district court that granted summary judgment dismissing Grey-Allen's Title VII retaliation claim; denied defendants' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative for a new trial; and awarded Townsend attorney's fees and costs. The court considered all of the arguments of the parties and affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race and gender, retaliation, and sexual harassment by her employer, the State Parole Division, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff contended that her supervisor's touchings were sufficiently abusive to support her hostile work environment claim and that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of fact to be tried. The court agreed that summary judgment dismissing the hostile work environment claim was inappropriate and vacated so much of the judgment as dismissed that claim, remanding for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs, motorcyclists, appealed from a jury verdict finding New York State Troopers not liable for injuries that plaintiffs sustained, including one plaintiff who sustained mortal injuries during a traffic stop. Plaintiffs claimed that the troopers violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure through the use of excessive force. The court held that the district court did not err by declining to instruct the jury regarding the use of "deadly force" in addition to a correct instruction on excessive force. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment from the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. Plaintiff was a convicted sex-offender who had been civilly committed post-release from prison and he alleged that when he was confined in the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, staff seized and withheld his personal DVDs and CDs and his incoming non-legal mail in violation of his due process rights. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the complaint failed to state any claim for which relief could be granted. The court also undertook to clarify some applicable principles and affirmed the judgment of the district court because, in any event, it was objectively reasonable for the Center staff to believe that their acts did not violate plaintiff's rights. Accordingly, they were entitled to qualified immunity.

The district court ordered the Governor of the State of New York and various state commissioners and agencies to make certain modifications to the State's mental health system to ensure compliance with 28 C.F.R. 35.130(d) - the so-called "integration mandate" of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. The court held that DAI, a nonprofit organization contracted to provide services to New York's Protection and Advocacy System under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq., lacked standing under Article III to bring the claim. The court also held that the intervention of the United States after the liability phase of the litigation had concluded was insufficient to cure the jurisdictional defect created by DAI's lack of standing. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remedial order and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing their complaint, which alleged that an elementary school student's First Amendment rights were violated when he was suspended for six days after expressing a wish for violence to the school and teachers. The litigation arose out of a crayon drawing by B.C., a ten-year-old fifth-grader, in response to an in-class assignment. The drawing depicted an astronaut and expressed a desire to "[b]low up the school with the teachers in it." The court concluded that it was reasonably foreseeable that the astronaut drawing could create a substantial disruption at the school and defendants' resulting decision to suspend B.C. was constitutional. The court also held that there was no merit to plaintiffs' argument that B.C.'s punishment was excessive in light of the court's deference to school authorities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff, an African-American and former Syracuse police officer, was suspended with pay pending investigation of an incident involving a fifteen-year-old girl whom he took to a hotel knowing she was a runaway. He was eventually suspended without pay and terminated. Plaintiff claimed that defendants, the City and certain police officers, discriminated against him by treating him more severely than white officers who committed acts of an equal or more serious nature. Because plaintiff's subsequent guilty plea to the charge of Endangering the Welfare of a Child resulted in his automatic termination under New York Public Officers Law 30(1)(e), he could not prove an "adverse employee action" for any of the measures taken by his employer after his guilty plea. Further, as a matter of law, plaintiff's suspension without pay pending the investigation did not, in these circumstances, amount to an adverse employment action, and plaintiff had no constitutionally recognized cause of action for deprivation of "professional courtesy" that police sometimes extended to their fellow officers.