Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, appealed from the judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint against defendants after granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's individual claims for damages arising from defendants' refusal to give plaintiff antiviral treatment for his Hepatitis C. Because the district court did not adequately explain why it granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for damages, the court vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court to address more fully defendants' motion. Because the district court misinterpreted the parties' settlement agreement with respect to the recovery of reasonable costs, the court vacated that part of the its order denying plaintiff's application for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses and remanded the issue to the district court to determine in its discretion whether to grant plaintiff's application for such costs.

Plaintiffs appealed from Judge Jones's quashing of a subpoena directed to Jesse Eisinger, a former Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporter, based on New York's journalists' Shield Law, New York Civil Rights Law 79-h. At issue was the qualified privilege under the Shield Law with regard to news that was both unpublished and not obtained under a promise of confidentiality. The underlying action in this matter was brought by plaintiffs against Goldman Sachs where plaintiffs' claims arose out of Goldman's service as plaintiffs' financial advisor in a sale of their company. Plaintiffs sought to depose Eisinger regarding two articles published in the WSJ. The district court granted Eisinger's motion to quash, holding that: (i) Eisinger, as a journalist, could claim the Shield Law's protection; (i) the information sought was covered by the Shield Law; and (iii) plaintiffs failed to overcome the privilege by establishing through "clear and convincing evidence" that the testimony "would be critical and relevant" to the maintenance of their claim. The district court noted that the testimony "invariably require[d] disclosure of the unpublished details of the newsgathering process." The court affirmed and held that the description of the oral argument and the findings of the district court rendered it virtually self-evident that the Shield Law would protect Eisinger from compelled testimony.

The City appealed from a district court order requiring it to pay plaintiff damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for retaliation against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and state law, for making complaints of gender discrimination. Plaintiff cross-appealed, principally challenging the dismissal of her retaliation claims against individual defendants and denying her additional damages and attorneys' fees. The court concluded that the City's appeal provided no basis for overturning the judgment against the City. The court also concluded that plaintiff's cross-appeal merited only in its challenges to (A) the dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of her New York State Human Rights Law (HRL), N.Y.Exec. Law 296 et seq., claim against defendant Rick Guy, and (B) the grant of summary judgment dismissing her main discrimination claims under the HRL against the City and defendant Roy Bernardi, and that plaintiff was entitled to trial of those discrimination claims. The court held, however, that a trial of the erroneously dismissed HRL discrimination claims alone could lead to an award of damages that would be duplicative, in whole or in part, or the compensation plaintiff was awarded in the present judgment. Accordingly, the court concluded that if there was to be a trial of the HRL discrimination claims, that trial must be combined with a retrial of plaintiff's Title VII and HRL retaliation claims against the City and her HRL retaliation claim against Guy.

In 1988 petitioner was convicted of first-degree robbery. After his release, he was arrested for murder and attempted murder and, in 2001, entered a plea of guilty in New York state court. Treating the attempted murder as a second violent felony, the state court imposed three consecutive terms of 25 years. The Department of Correctional Services determined that an undischarged portion of the robbery prison term should be added to the 2001 sentence. Direct review ended in 2005; from 2005-2008, petitioner pursued post-conviction motions in state court. In 2008, he filed a federal petition for habeas corpus, which was dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The petition did not mention the DOC sentencing calculation. The Second Circuit affirmed. State applications for post-conviction relief did not toll the one-year statute of limitations. Section2244(d)(2) limits tolling to those applications for post-conviction or other collateral review that are made with respect to the pertinent judgment: the 2001 conviction and sentence. The applications at issue were directed neither to the conviction nor to the sentence; they concerned only a post-conviction administrative determination that the sentence ran consecutively to the earlier undischarged prison term.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that recently-enacted amendments to the New York City Administrative Code, commonly known as the "pay-to-play" rules, violated the First Amendment by unduly burdening protected political speech and association, the Fourteenth Amendment by denying equal protection of the laws, and the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973. The challenged provisions (1) reduced below the generally-applicable campaign contribution limited the amounts that people who have business dealings with the city, including lobbyists, could contribute to political campaigns; (2) denied matching funds for contributions by people who have business dealings with the city and certain people associated with lobbyists; and (3) extended the existing prohibition on corporate contributions to partnerships, LLCs, and LLPs. The court affirmed summary judgment as to all three provisions, finding that the laws were closely drawn to address the significant governmental interest in reducing corruption or the appearance thereof.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court dismissing her disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., as untimely. The court concluded that the 90-day limitations period provided by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) began to run when a right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC was first received either by the claimant or by the claimant's counsel. Therefore, because plaintiff initiated this action 93 days after her presumptive receipt of the right-to-sue letter, the district court properly held that her claim was time-barred. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of its complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and from the district court's order denying its motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff asserted, inter alia, claims against defendants under the First and Fourth Amendments and under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422, as well as under state constitutions and various anti-wiretapping, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court erred by holding that it lacked standing, by denying jurisdictional discovery, and by denying it leave to amend its complaint. The court held that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff did not have Article III standing to assert its claims. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery and for leave to amend its complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and order of the district court.

Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants had retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that the speech on which plaintiff based her claim was not protected under the First Amendment and that the individual defendants had qualified immunity from suit. The district court held, alternatively, that summary judgment would have been appropriate if the speech had been protected, because the school district would have fired plaintiff even in the absence of the speech. Plaintiff appealed. The court held that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment; that appellees' rebuttal was subject to credibility questions and hence could not be resolved as a matter of law; and that appellees were not, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to qualified immunity.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing her disability-discrimination complaint against JetBlue. Plaintiff alleged that she required wheelchair assistance as a result of her disability and that JetBlue discriminated against her by failing to provide timely wheelchair assistance. The court affirmed the order of the district court because no private right of action existed for a violation of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. 41705, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12181-12189, did not apply to services provided by an air carrier in an airport terminal used primarily to facilitate air transportation.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the district court denying her petition to vacate an arbitration decision that rejected her claims, which asserted principally that defendant, her former employer, discriminated against her on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal plaintiff principally contended that the arbitrators' decision should be vacated in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Fair Pay Act), Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5. The court reviewed the district court's conclusions of law de novo and found plaintiff's contentions to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.