Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and his wife appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, two officers. The suit sought damages for the seizure of plaintiffs who were ordered to return to their automobile, a disorderly conduct arrest, and an alleged malicious prosecution, all claimed to have been precipitated by plaintiff's "giving the finger" to a police officer. The court held that there was a question of whether a motor vehicle stop occurred; there was a question of whether there was probable cause for the arrest for disorderly conduct; and it was error for the district court to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim based on dictum in Burg v. Gosselin. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment dismissing all three of plaintiffs' claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Swartz, et al v. Insogna, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Enio Rivera and Michael Talton, employees of Lift Line, a subsidiary of RGRTA, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of RGRTA and a supervisor and dismissing plaintiffs' claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981, and New York state law. Considering the evidence, together with the evidence of a racially hostile work environment for Talton, his co-worker, in the light most favorable to Rivera, and resolving all ambiguities in his favor, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Rivera's hostile work environment claim. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Talton and accepting his version of the events as true, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing Talton's hostile work environment claims pursuant to Title VII and section 1981. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on Rivera's retaliation claims but vacated the grant of summary judgment on Talton's retaliation claim against RGRTA and vacated its grant of summary judgment dismissing Talton's retaliation claim against the supervisor under section 1981. The court also vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing Talton's state law claims. View "Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Building Official for the Town of Marlborough from 1994-2010, sued the Town, as well as its Board of Selectmen, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he was deprived of his procedural due process and free speech rights when his position was reduced from full to part time after he made certain statements regarding the use of wood-burning stoves. The court held that the district court erred in determining that Selectmen Black was not entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim, as plaintiff had not adequately alleged that he had a constitutionally protected property right in full-time employment. The court also held that the district court erred in determining that the Selectmen defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff's First Amendment claim, as plaintiff did not adequately allege that he spoke in his capacity as a private citizen. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Looney v. Marlborough et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the DEP, claimed that he failed to prevail in a prior employment-related suit because of false statements and deliberate omissions in an investigative report issued by defendant. The court held that "backward-looking" access-to-court claims were not cognizable when plaintiff had knowledge of the crucial facts and an opportunity to rebut opposing evidence, because such a plaintiff necessarily had adequate access to a judicial remedy. The court also held that the district court's opinion in the prior suit demonstrated that it did not rely on statements or omissions in defendant's report, and therefore no reasonable factfinder could find that defendant's actions denied him a right of access to the courts in violation of his federal constitutional rights. View "Sousa v. Marquez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the District, contending that it was deliberately indifferent to his harassment when he attended Stissing Mountain High School. A jury found the District liable for violating Title VI and awarded plaintiff $1.25 million in damages. The district court denied the District's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), but granted remittitur of the jury award to $1 million. The District appealed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that the District's responses to student harassment of plaintiff amounted to deliberate indifference to discrimination and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Given the ongoing and objective offensiveness of the student-on-student harassment here, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the record could support an award of $1 million. View "Zeno v. Pine Plains Central School Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a conviction of conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce, a misdemeanor violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(1). Defendant, a pharmaceutical sales representative, promoted the drug Xyrem for "off-label use." The court agreed with defendant that he was convicted for his speech -- for promoting an FDA-approved drug for off-label use -- in violation of his right of free speech under the First Amendment. The court limited its holding to FDA-approved drugs for which off-label use was not prohibited. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Caronia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was arrested for third-degree menacing under New York law and brought an action against defendants for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff also sued the City of White Plains under section 1983 for failure to train and supervise the arresting officers. Plaintiff approached a woman in her driveway, questioned her about members of her household, and insisted that her car had hit his. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. The court vacated the judgment of the district court. The order granting summary judgment to all defendants on the theory that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity was reversed; denying partial summary judgment on plaintiff's state law false arrest claims against the arresting officers and the City was reversed; and denying partial summary judgment for plaintiff against the officers under section 1983 was reversed. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on the Monell claim and the dismissal of all malicious prosecution claims under New York law and section 1983. The court remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for his state law false arrest claims against the officers and the City; against the officers under section 1983 for his false arrest claims; and for the dismissal of the affirmative defenses of probable cause. View "Ackerson v. City of White Plains" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, barring New York State handgun licensing officials from requiring that applicants prove "proper cause" to obtain licenses to carry handguns for self-defense pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f). They argued that application for section 400.00(2)(f) violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Because the proper cause requirement was substantially related to New York's compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kachalsky v. Cacace" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants unlawfully retaliated against him after he spoke out about issues involving his employer, the Long Beach Fire Department. The district court dismissed some of the claims against some of the defendants and the remaining individual defendants sought to appeal the denial of their dismissal motion, raising a defense of qualified immunity. The court held, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to consider their appeal because they did not file a timely notice of appeal that specified that they intended to appeal. View "Gusler v. The City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., following the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was dismissed from Valley View's volunteer program after engaging in erratic and harassing behavior towards female staff. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether he was discriminated against because of his disability. View "McElwee v. County of Orange" on Justia Law