Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant, an African-American temporary employee of the U.S. Department of Labor, filed suit against the Department, alleging that it dismissed him from his position as a Veterans Employment Specialist because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department for want of evidence of racial discrimination. The court affirmed on the slightly different ground that no reasonable juror could find that the Department's stated, nondiscriminatory reasons for dismissing appellant were not its real reasons. In this case, the Department’s position is that it terminated appellant because his performance was deficient and his demeanor was argumentative in response to supervisor feedback. Appellant has failed to identify record evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that race played a role in his discharge. View "Johnson v. Perez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, as a holder of U.S. public debt, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Debt Limit Statute, 31 U.S.C. 3101. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Public Debt Clause and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for lack of standing because he failed to allege plausible factual allegations to establish the constitutional minimum requirements for Article III standing, either in the first amended complaint (FAC) filed with the district court or in his proposed amended complaint filed with this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1653. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend his FAC and denied plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint on appeal. View "Williams v. Lew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against NASA, his former employer, claiming unlawful discrimination. In plaintiff's first appeal, the court granted summary judgment to NASA on plaintiff's various claims of discrimination and retaliation over a six-year period. In this appeal, plaintiff alleges claims of discrimination and retaliation occurring between 1996-2004, under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791(b), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court concluded that, without a disability within the meaning of the statute, or NASA regarding him as so impaired, plaintiff's claim of discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act fails. The court also concluded that plaintiff's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims based on eight discrete events failed. Even assuming all of these events are actionable, there is no basis whatsoever for a reasonable jury to infer either discrimination or retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to NASA in its entirety. View "Nurriddin v. Bolden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various D.C. statutes, seeking damages after officers shot and killed her dog while executing a search warrant. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officer who first shot the dog based on the grounds that plaintiff's eyewitness account of the shooting was uncorroborated and contradicted by other evidence. The court concluded that the district court improperly assumed the jury functions of making credibility determinations, weighing the evidence, and drawing legitimate inferences from the facts. Therefore, the court reversed and concluded that, viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences most favorably to plaintiff, a jury could conclude that the officer acted unreasonably in shooting the dog. The court also reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers on plaintiff's claim that they violated the Fourth Amendment by unreasonably destroying her personal property during the shooting because this claim is intertwined with the dog's seizure. However, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to another officer who shot the dog, as well as to the District of Columbia. View "Robinson v. Pezzat" on Justia Law

The Institute, a Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, filed suit against the FEC, challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. 20104(f). The district court denied the Institute's request to convene a three-judge district court pursuant to the statutory provision that requires three-judge district courts for constitutional challenges to the BCRA. On the merits, the district court held that the Institute's claim was unavailing under McConnell v. FEC, and Citizens United V. FEC. The Institute appealed. The court concluded that, because the Institute’s complaint raises a First Amendment challenge to a provision of BCRA, 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) entitles it to a three-judge district court. In this case, the Institute’s attempt to advance its as-applied First Amendment challenge is not “essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, and obviously without merit.” Therefore, section 2284 “entitles” the Institute to make its case “before a three-judge district court.” Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Independence Institute v. FEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was terminated by her former employer, the Hospital, based on racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hospital. The court concluded that, by providing evidence that similarly situated non-black nurses were treated more favorably, plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her termination, which ought to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp." on Justia Law

Defendant and others in New York City sought to build an Islamic community center and mosque in lower Manhattan, a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001. Plaintiff, a former New York firefighter filed suit, against defendant alleging that the plan to build a mosque and community center near the World Trade Center site constituted a nuisance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault. Larry Klayman represented plaintiff in that lawsuit. Defendant, through his attorney Adam Bailey, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. Then plaintiff and his his counsel, Klayman, filed suit against Bailey, alleging infliction of emotional distress caused by the statements Bailey made in dismissal papers filed in New York Supreme Court and the reporting of one of those statements in the New York Post. Klayman and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that suit and then filed the present action against Bailey. Bailey filed a motion to dismiss on multiple grounds. The court concluded that, under controlling circuit precedent, the complaint makes no plausible allegation of personal jurisdiction over Bailey, and the district court should have promptly dismissed the case on that basis. However, because the district court dismissed the case, the court can affirm the district court’s judgment on the alternative ground that it lacked jurisdiction. View "Forras v. Rauf" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the FEC’s rule requiring corporations and labor organizations to disclose only those donations “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” At issue in this appeal is whether the rule survives Step Two of the Chevron framework and State Farm's arbitrary and capricious test, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The court held that the FEC’s purpose requirement satisfies both Chevron Step Two and State Farm review has the benefit both of being a correct application of black letter administrative law and of forestalling to some other time an answer to the important constitutional questions bubbling beneath the surface of this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Title IX, and various D.C. tort laws, seeking damages from the District. Plaintiff alleged that, while attending a District school for emotionally disturbed students, she and a teacher had a consensual sexual relationship that led to the birth of a child. In regard to the section 1983 claim, the court concluded that in order for the district court to assess whether plaintiff stated a facially plausible complaint, plaintiff needed to assert the elements of the type of municipal policy that caused her injury. Plaintiff failed to do so in this case. In regard to the Title IX claim, the court also concluded that plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education standard where she has not alleged that anyone - much less an appropriate official - knew of any acts of sexual harassment while the harassment was ongoing. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet the statutory notice requirement for her tort claim and that her alternative claim seeking to discover a police report about the incident is forfeited. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blue v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791 et seq., alleging that the District: (1) unlawfully refused to accommodate her disability, and (2) retaliated against her for requesting an accommodation by terminating her employment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff's refusal-to-accommodate claim because she was not a qualified individual. The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff's retaliation claim because she did not proffer any evidence proving that the actual reason for her termination was retaliatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Minter v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law