Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a black woman, worked as a Supervisory Medical Support Assistant at the Kansas City Veterans Administration (KCVA). After her supervisor, Angela Frey, was hired, the plaintiff alleged that Frey harassed her from the outset. The plaintiff was eventually assigned to a different position outside her original office and retired from the KCVA over a year later. She claimed that Frey discriminated against her based on race, retaliated against her for complaining about racial discrimination, created a racially hostile work environment, and constructively discharged her.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the KCVA. The district court found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of training, a negative performance review leading to reassignment, and interference with a job application in Florida were either too vague, unsupported by evidence, or based on inadmissible hearsay. The court also determined that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of discriminatory intent or a causal link between any protected activity and adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court concluded that the incidents described did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment or constructive discharge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or constructive discharge under Title VII. The court emphasized that speculation and conclusory statements were insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial and that the conduct alleged did not meet the legal threshold for actionable discrimination or harassment. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Sherman v. Collins" on Justia Law

In the aftermath of protests in St. Louis following the acquittal of a police officer, two individuals attended a demonstration as legal observers. They remained off the interstate highway while protesters marched onto and blocked Interstate 64. After the protesters exited the highway, the observers and the group proceeded together onto Jefferson Avenue. Police, acting on orders to arrest those who had trespassed on the interstate, encircled and arrested the entire group, including the observers, despite their protests that they had not been on the highway. The observers were processed but never charged with any crime.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed claims against one officer for lack of timely notice and later granted summary judgment to the remaining officers and the City. The court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim, reasoning that it was not clearly established that arresting the observers under these circumstances violated the Constitution. The court also granted qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims, finding the officers had at least arguable probable cause and that the plaintiffs had not shown retaliatory motive. The court rejected the municipal liability claims as well. The plaintiffs appealed only the grant of summary judgment to the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that, under precedent, officers had arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs as part of a group that had trespassed, given the practical difficulties of distinguishing individuals in a mass protest. The court also held that the existence of arguable probable cause defeated the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. The court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Kampas v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who worked for a bank that operated a branch inside a public high school, was terminated from her employment after she publicly criticized the local school district’s mask mandate on social media and at school events. The bank’s operation at the school was part of a partnership in which the bank provided funds and services to the school district. The plaintiff’s children attended schools in the district, and she was active in school-related activities. After a series of confrontations and a critical Facebook post about a school board member, the school superintendent communicated with the bank’s branch manager, expressing disapproval of the plaintiff’s conduct and requesting that she be barred from school property. The bank subsequently suspended and then fired the plaintiff, citing her conduct and the school’s ban.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy or tortious interference. The court applied the Pickering balancing test, treating the plaintiff as a government contractor, and found no actionable retaliation. It also found no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the bank and the school district, and held that the superintendent and other officials were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the plaintiff was not a government employee or contractor for First Amendment purposes and was entitled to ordinary citizen protections. It found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the superintendent, the bank, and the branch manager retaliated against the plaintiff for protected speech, and whether the superintendent tortiously interfered with her employment. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the school board chair and the school district, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement or policy liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McNeally v. HomeTown Bank" on Justia Law

Raymond Thompson purchased a custom Harley Davidson motorcycle and paid off all liens, but after the sale, the seller, Nathan Rench, fraudulently obtained a duplicate title, preventing Thompson from registering the motorcycle. Later, two individuals claiming to act for Rench arrived at Thompson’s home with Manchester, Missouri police officers, seeking to recover the motorcycle. The officers, after verifying the duplicate title and registration in Rench’s name, allowed the individuals to take the motorcycle from Thompson’s fenced backyard. Thompson was not home at the time. The next day, after Thompson reported the motorcycle stolen and provided evidence of his ownership, the officers instructed Rench to return the motorcycle, but Rench refused. The motorcycle was eventually recovered after Rench’s arrest.Thompson filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his property and allowing the removal of his motorcycle, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. He also sought sanctions for the police department’s failure to preserve body and dash camera footage. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on the basis of qualified immunity, denied Thompson’s motion for sanctions, and denied his motion for partial summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by entering Thompson’s backyard or by allowing the motorcycle’s removal, as their actions were consistent with existing Eighth Circuit precedent regarding limited warrantless entries and peacekeeping roles. The court also found no evidence of joint action or coercion by the officers sufficient to establish state action for a due process claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions, as Thompson failed to show prejudice from the loss of the recordings. View "Thompson v. Cockrell" on Justia Law

During an oil pipeline protest in Hubbard County, Minnesota, Matthew Locke and another protestor locked themselves to construction equipment using a device known as a “sleeping dragon,” which made removal difficult. Law enforcement officers, including Sheriff Cory Aukes and Chief Deputy Scott Parks, responded to the scene. In their efforts to remove Locke, the officers used several pain compliance techniques, applying pressure to various nerves on Locke’s head and neck. Locke alleges that as a result, he suffered facial paralysis, tinnitus, and emotional distress. After being removed from the device by extraction teams, Locke was evaluated by EMTs, taken to the hospital, and then jailed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Locke’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law. The court held that Sheriff Aukes and Deputy Parks were entitled to qualified and official immunity, and that Locke’s complaint did not state a claim for municipal liability against Hubbard County. The district court also dismissed Locke’s state law claims for assault and battery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Eighth Circuit held that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, Locke plausibly alleged a violation of his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, as the officers’ use of pain compliance techniques on a nonviolent, passively resisting misdemeanant was not objectively reasonable. The court also found that the district court erred in dismissing the official capacity claim without considering whether the sheriff was a final policymaker for the county. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of official immunity on the state law claims, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged willful violation of a known right. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Locke v. County of Hubbard" on Justia Law

Police officers in Bella Vista, Arkansas, responded to a home shared by the Welters and Hutchins families after a suspected drug overdose, where they found pills, including fentanyl, in areas accessible to children. A week later, another overdose occurred at the same residence, resulting in a fatality while children were present. Months later, officers discovered traces of THC in the home’s trash, and a subsequent search revealed marijuana and drug paraphernalia throughout the house, including a still-smoking bong. During an interview, one parent admitted that adults regularly smoked marijuana in the home, though they tried to keep the children out of the room. Police notified the Arkansas Department of Human Services about possible child endangerment. Shortly after, Detective Wilson and other officers took the minor children for forensic interviews without a warrant, over the parents’ objections, and warned the parents they would be arrested if they interfered. The children were later returned to their parents.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to Detective Wilson on the parents’ Fourth Amendment claims, finding she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that the parents had not alleged a violation of their own Fourth Amendment rights and that the claims on behalf of the children did not overcome qualified immunity. The parents appealed, focusing solely on the Fourth Amendment claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that Detective Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity because, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer could have believed there was reasonable suspicion that the children were in danger. The court also declined to adopt a new standard requiring probable cause and exigent circumstances for such removals, noting that existing precedent did not clearly establish such a right. View "Welter v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A long-serving principal at a public middle school implemented an “inclusion project” that included a display of various flags, among them a Pride flag, using school funds. She informed staff that this project was part of her professional goals and later helped establish a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) student group. The inclusion of the Pride flag and her advocacy for LGBTQ+ students generated controversy among staff and community members, leading to complaints about her leadership style and claims that she was creating a divisive work environment. After an outside investigation substantiated concerns about her management, she was removed as principal and reassigned to a different administrative role.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and its officials on her federal claims, finding that her speech and actions were made pursuant to her official duties as principal and thus not protected by the First Amendment. The court also found insufficient evidence that any private speech or advocacy outside her official role was a motivating factor in the adverse employment actions. The district court dismissed her federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the principal’s actions regarding the flag display and GSA were undertaken as part of her official duties and therefore constituted government speech, not protected by the First Amendment. The court also found no evidence that any private speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the employment decisions. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Thomas v. Marshall Public Schools" on Justia Law

Marcus D. Evans, an inmate at the Varner Supermax Unit in Arkansas, was placed in full restraints to attend a prison program. After returning to his cell, officers removed his hand restraints but refused to remove his leg restraints, despite his repeated requests. Evans remained in leg restraints for approximately 15 hours, during which he experienced pain, had difficulty sleeping, and was forced to cut off his clothing to shower. Medical records indicated he reported significant pain but showed no serious physical injury. Evans alleged that the officers’ refusal to remove the restraints was intentional and stemmed from prior altercations and threats.Evans filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, asserting an excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers. The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, finding that while a jury could find a constitutional violation, the right was not clearly established. The district court declined to adopt this recommendation, holding that existing precedent clearly established that prolonged restraints without penological justification could constitute excessive force, and denied qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that the officers’ refusal to remove the leg restraints constituted a use of force, and that Evans’s pain and discomfort, even absent serious injury, were sufficient to support an excessive force claim. The court further found that existing case law clearly established that subjecting an inmate to prolonged restraints without penological justification could violate the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. View "Evans v. Smith" on Justia Law

A police sergeant in Dermott, Arkansas, was terminated from his position after being charged with tampering with physical evidence and abuse of office. The charges stemmed from an incident in which the sergeant received a bag of quarters, believed to be stolen, from another officer following a robbery investigation. The sergeant’s documentation of the evidence was inconsistent, and the quarters were not turned in to the department. During a subsequent investigation, the sergeant admitted he may have used the quarters for personal purposes. Although the charges were later dismissed, the sergeant maintained that his termination was solely due to the criminal charges. He also previously reported another officer’s excessive use of force, which he claimed was a motivating factor in his firing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants, including the police chief, the officer involved, and the city. The court found that the sergeant failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether his termination was motivated by his protected speech, as the firing occurred long after his report and the criminal charges provided an obvious alternative explanation. The court also determined that the sergeant was not seized under the Fourth Amendment, negating his malicious prosecution claim, and that he lacked a property interest in his employment under Arkansas law, defeating his due process claims. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and found them lacking on the merits, including claims under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the sergeant failed to present sufficient evidence to support his federal constitutional claims or his state law claims, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining and resolving the state law claims. View "Brown v. City of Dermott Arkansas" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former police officer in Dermott, Arkansas, alleged that he was forced to resign in retaliation for reporting a fellow officer’s excessive use of force. The incident in question involved the other officer grabbing an arrestee by the neck while the arrestee was restrained. Subsequently, the officer accused the plaintiff of taking money from a parolee, which the parolee confirmed in a statement. The police chief referred the matter to a prosecutor, who initiated a state police investigation. During this period, the plaintiff’s employment status became unclear, with conflicting statements about whether he was fired or resigned. The plaintiff ultimately resigned after a job offer from another police department was rescinded due to the ongoing investigation. He was later charged with abuse of office and witness bribery, but the charges were dismissed when the parolee could not be located.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and had not suffered an adverse employment action, which was necessary for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for his malicious prosecution claim, as a summons to appear in court did not constitute a seizure. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and found that they failed on the merits, including claims under the Arkansas Whistle Blower Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s voluntary resignation did not amount to an adverse employment action, and that he was not seized under the Fourth Amendment. The court also agreed that the state law claims failed as a matter of law. View "Brown v. City of Dermott Arkansas" on Justia Law