Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 1990, Carter went to Stegemiller’s home because Stegemiller had filed a small claims case against his mother. Carter asked to discuss the case, then forced his way into Stegemiller’s home, started to strangle her, and struck her in the head with a tire iron. Carter held Stegemiller down and removed her jewelry while Carter’s accomplice, Mitchell, raped her. Before she lost consciousness, Stegemiller saw the men taking a stereo speaker from her home and heard one say “[M]ake sure she’s dead … she can identify us.” The two removed the telephones and locked and barricaded the doors so that Stegemiller could not leave or seek help. Stegemiller survived, with serious injuries. Convicted of felony burglary, robbery, rape, and attempted murder, Carter was sentenced to 90 years. A month later, the Indiana Supreme Court held that “an instruction which purports to set forth the elements which must be proven in order to convict of the crime of attempted murder must inform the jury that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to kill the victim, engaged in conduct which was a substantial step toward such killing.” On direct appeal, Carter’s attorney failed to argue that the attempted murder jury instruction given at Carter’s trial constituted fundamental error. Carter lost his appeal. Rejecting a petition for post-conviction relief, the Indiana Supreme Court found that Carter did not suffer sufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside the verdict. The district court rejected a petition for federal habeas corpus relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Carter v. Butt" on Justia Law

In 2006, Matthews, an African-American woman, applied for two open positions in Waukesha County: Economic Support Specialist and Economic Support Supervisor. She was not hired, and filed suit, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and 42 U.S.C. 1983.Matthews dismissed her claim related to the Supervisor position. With respect to the Specialist position, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the county articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for its hiring decision. View "Matthews v. Waukesha Cnty." on Justia Law

Bell was employed as a substance abuse counselor at an Indiana maximum security prison. An investigator, looking for security breaches, discovered that night-shift employees were having sex on Bell’s desk and told her that he was not concerned about night-shift staff having sex but suggested she wash her desk every morning. The superintendent said that, as long as inmates were not involved, he was not concerned. Immediately thereafter, the superintendent discovered that Bell was having an affair with the Major in charge of custody (allegedly involving sex on his desk) and both were terminated. The prison settled the Major’s appeal to the State Employees’ Appeals Commission and called him to testify against Bell at her appeal. Major was able to keep his benefits, including his pension, to quickly get unemployment benefits, and to subsequently begin working at the prison as a contractor. Bell was not afforded similar benefits and opportunities and filed suit, alleging Title VII claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment to the state, concluding that Bell was not similarly situated to the Major, that she failed to prove retaliation, and that the sexual tenor of the prison’s work environment was not severe or pervasive enough to qualify as hostile. The Seventh Circuit reversed with regard to the discrimination and hostile environment claims, but affirmed with regard to her retaliation claims. View "Orton-Bell v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

Jewel Foods employed Reeves as a bagger from 1997 until his dismissal in 2005. Reeves has Down syndrome and received vocational tutoring from Jewel; a social service agency sent a job coach to work with Reeves. Jewel’s Service Manager provided individual training. Jewel instituted supervision policies that applied only to Reeves. Reeves, unlike the other baggers, was exempted from collecting shopping carts from the parking lot after he was found directing customers how to park their cars. Reeves sometimes had trouble complying with workplace rules. He cursed at a manager when the table at which he usually ate lunch was used for a tasting; he once cursed within earshot of a customer about another customer. In 2005, Reeves took an American flag pin from a store shelf without paying for it, apparently not realizing the pins were for sale. Despite its usual policy, Jewel decided not to fire him. Reeves’s parents asked if Jewel could bring back a job coach. Reeves’s supervisor deemed the extra instruction unnecessary. Reeves was later terminated for cursing at another employee within earshot of a customer and other employees. The EEOC concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe both that Jewel discriminated against Reeves because of his disability and that Jewel engaged in a pattern and practice of denying reasonable accommodations to disabled employees. The district court dismissed his Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, failure‐to‐accommodate claim, citing numerous accommodations Jewel had made and the fact that Jewel did not explicitly reject the Reeves’s job coach suggestion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Reeves v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Townsend, a prisoner at the Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI), sued GBCA officials for civil rights violations. Townsend suffered from significant mental illness and engaged in disruptive behavior, including suicide attempts and fighting. Townsend was repeatedly subjected observation placements and Behavioral Action Plans (BAPs). The district court rejected his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, but otherwise vacated. Townsend has raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the imposition of the BAP violated his due process rights by imposing an atypical and significant hardship compared to the ordinary incidents of prison life, without appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard and whether the BAP imposed conditions of confinement that denied Townsend the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. View "Townsend v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Harden pled guilty to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine under a written plea agreement. With Harden’s consent, the court instructed a magistrate judge to conduct a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 plea colloquy under a local rule allowing magistrate judges to accept felony guilty pleas. The magistrate judge accepted Harden’s guilty plea. The district court then conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed sentence. Harden appealed the magistrate judge’s acceptance of his plea, arguing that the magistrate’s acceptance of a felony guilty plea, instead of preparing a report and recommendation to the district court, violated the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636; Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and the U.S. Constitution. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the prevalence of guilty pleas does not render them less important, or the protections waived by plea any less fundamental. A felony guilty plea is equal in importance to a felony trial; without explicit authorization from Congress, the district court cannot delegate the task. The Supreme Court has never suggested that magistrate judges, with the parties’ consent, may perform every duty of an Article III judge. View "United States v. Harden" on Justia Law

On February 28, 2007, Barriera barricaded himself in his bedroom. He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia years earlier, but had not been taking his medicine regularly. His mother (Wilson) feared he might harm himself. When the family’s efforts to convince him to leave his room were unsuccessful, Wilson called 911. She explained that Barriera might be suicidal. A firefighter was able to open the bedroom door enough to observe Barriera holding a hunting knife and moving around the room and called for police assistance. Officers arrived and worked for several minutes to persuade Barriera to leave his room. Later, an officer deployed his taser through the partially open door, hitting Barriera, who removed the prongs from his chest. Seconds later, he lunged at the officers with the knife. One officer deployed the taser and another fired his weapon. Barriera was struck by the taser prongs and two bullets.. Barriera later died from his injuries. A jury rejected Wilson’s claims against the officers (under 42 U.S.C. 1983) for excessive force; for wrongful death against the officers under Illinois law; under the Illinois Survival Statute against the officers; and that the city was liable for the torts of the officers under the theory of respondeat superior. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and to the manner in which the court instructed the jury. View "Wilson v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Indiana Code 31-11-6-1 specifies that a marriage may be solemnized (performed) by certain public officials or religious officials designated by religious groups and criminalizes purported marriage solemnization by others. The law omits equivalent officials of secular groups such as humanist societies. Florida, Maine, and South Carolina authorize humanists to solemnize marriages by becoming notaries public, but notaries cannot perform marriages in Indiana. Alaska, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Virginia allow anyone to solemnize a marriage; Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin allow the couple to solemnize their own marriage. Indiana recognizes neither option. The state accommodates some religions, such as the Quakers, that do not have clergy, but does not accommodate others, such as Buddhists. In a challenge under 42 U.S.C.1983, the district court upheld the law, reasoning that a humanist group could call itself a religion, which would be good enough for the state or could conduct a ceremony, followed by a trip to court for a legally effective solemnization. The Seventh Circuit reversed, with instructions to issue an injunction allowing certified secular humanist celebrants to solemnize marriages in Indiana. If Indiana amends its statute to allow notaries to solemnize marriages, the court may modify the injunction to minimize the extent to which a federal decree supersedes the state’s own solution to identified problems. View "Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Marion Circuit Court Clerk" on Justia Law

King was in police custody awaiting a probable cause determination in 2007. After being rapidly tapered off his psychotropic medication by jail medical staff, complaining of seizure-like symptoms, and being placed in an isolated cell for seven hours, he was found dead. His estate sued La Crosse County and individual employees. After a remand, six weeks before the trial date, after unsuccessful settlement discussions, King’s counsel asserted in a letter to the defendants that the correct standard for jury instructions in the upcoming trial was one of objective reasonableness, not the deliberate indifference standard that had been used by both parties in the pleadings, the summary judgment briefing, the subsequent appeal, and remand pretrial preparations. The assertion was correct as a matter of law, but shortly after receiving the letter, defendants moved that King be precluded from arguing the applicability of the objective reasonableness standard because of her tardiness in asserting the argument. The district court agreed and ordered that the case be tried as scheduled under the deliberate indifference standard. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, acknowledging that King’s long, unexplained delay in asserting the correct standard was puzzling and problematic, but stating that the district court failed to provide a sufficient explanation of how the defendants would suffer prejudice as a result of the delay. View "King v. Kramer" on Justia Law

Tank, who was born in India, worked for T-Mobile as a vice president. After two investigations relating to his treatment of colleagues, he was fired. Tank filed suit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and disparate pay. The district court entered summary judgment for T-Mobile. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Based on the circumstantial evidence Tank provided, no reasonable jury could conclude that T-Mobile fired Tank because of his national origin or race or that the human resources director harbored discriminatory animus or was deliberately indifferent to Tank’s claim. The employees to whom Tank compared himself were not valid comparators.View "Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law