Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 against the City, code inspector Peterson, and chief code inspector Denker, and various other defendants, alleging federal and state constitutional violations, and that defendants conspired to deter her from seeking judicial relief from their conduct and to deprive her of equal protection of the law and equal privileges and immunities under the law. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiff's allegations of sexual harassment against Peterson failed to state a claim of municipal liability under section 1983; plaintiff failed to state a claim with respect to the alleged actions of Denker and the unidentified Jane and John Does - either in connection with her sexual harassment claim against Petersen or as an independent claim that these defendants violated her federally protected rights; and plaintiff failed to state a claim independent of Petersen’s alleged sexual harassment. Because plaintiff’s complaint contained no facts showing that Denker or any unnamed City employee violated her constitutional rights, the court did not reach whether Denker, as chief code inspector, was a policymaking official or whether his role in the alleged conduct permits an inference that the City adopted a policy targeting plaintiff. Further, plaintiff failed to allege a conspiracy under section 1985 because the City could not conspire with itself through its agents acting within the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kelly v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's failure to disclose her claims in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings judicially estopped her from pursuing them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Van Horn v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983; and state law. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his retaliation claim. Because the court can resolve this appeal on other grounds, the court left for another day whether a defense based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies may effectively be waived. On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff has failed to establish direct evidence of retaliation. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the reasons given for his termination were pretextual. In this case, plaintiff failed to identify any causal connection between his desire to promote an African American staff member and his termination, and had therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hutton v. Maynard" on Justia Law

Demien, the unsuccessful bidder for the construction of a new firehouse, filed suit against the District under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District violated federal and state constitutional rights, as well as state law, in the bidding process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that it need only determine whether Damien has Article III standing under Federal law and not whether Damien has standing under Missouri law. Determining that Demien has Article III standing, the court concluded that Demien has abandoned its claims under the First Amendment by failing to argue them before the district court, and that Demien failed to allege that the District deprived Demien of any entitlement, and so it failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The court concluded that, under Missouri law, there is no property right to the lowest bidder, and standing to bring a state court claim of deprivation of property rights does not establish a protected property interest. In this case, the District stated that it may accept the lowest bid, but does not need to. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Demien Construction Co. v. O'Fallon Fire Protection Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate with PTSD, filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights because defendants were indifferent to his medical needs, and that defendants retaliated against him by transferring him to TSCI and by reclassifying him. In this interlocutory appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, the record shows that defendants met plaintiff's medical needs beyond the minimum standard required where they were aware of his medical needs and took steps to meet those needs. The court concluded that there was no deprivation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights because plaintiff cannot show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference; plaintiff has no First Amendment claim because none of plaintiff's activities were protected and none of defendants' actions were retaliatory; and there is no cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim because there has been no constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed the case. View "Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a white man, filed suit against officials of the St. Louis Police Department, alleging race discrimination and conspiracy to discriminate when an African-American woman was chosen for the position in which plaintiff applied. A jury found in favor of plaintiff on his claims against three of his superiors (Defendants Muxo, Harris, and Isom). Defendants appealed. The court concluded that materially different working conditions provided sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action. Because there were “probative facts to support the verdict,” the district court did not err by denying defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s discrimination claims. The court also concluded that a reasonable jury could find evidence of a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging that a deputy had denied him emergency medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the deputy and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the deputy is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the deputy acted unreasonably where a right under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable delay in medical care for an arrestee had been clearly established at the time. The court also concluded that plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference failed because he has not produced sufficient evidence to support a finding that the deputy violated that right. In this case, plaintiff received medical treatment on the morning that he was released from jail, and his claim is premised on harm allegedly arising from the delay caused by plaintiff’s failure to arrange a hospital visit the day before. The medical evidence is insufficient to establish an objectively serious medical need for expeditious treatment on the day of plaintiff’s arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bailey v. Feltmann" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of dual status National Guard technicians who had their benefits determined prior to the court's issuance of Petersen v. Astrue and would like to have their benefits readjusted to take advantage of the decision to avoid application of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's decision to reject the application of mandamus jurisdiction where the district court held that there is no clear, nondiscretionary duty on behalf of the SSA to apply the Peterson decision to plaintiffs. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to present a colorable constitutional claim on equal protection grounds that would justify the application of the exception to 42 U.S.C. 405(g)’s jurisdictional limitations. Plaintiffs’ due process claim also does not support application of an exception to 405(g). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mitchael v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against TNI, alleging that TNI discriminated against her on the basis of race, terminated her in retaliation for her complaints, and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681. Plaintiff also filed suit against a fellow truck driver, James Paris, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim and in analyzing plaintiff's sexual harassment claim by not considering all that had occurred during the 34 hour rest period in Pharr, Texas; the record contains genuine issues of material fact about all that happened on the trip and whether plaintiff subjectively perceived Paris' actions as offensive; and the district court erred in finding that plaintiff did not report Paris' conduct to TNI in a timely manner. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's sex discrimination claims under Title VII and Arkansas' civil rights statute because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether plaintiff subjectively felt abused by Paris, that TNI was aware of his conduct, and that TNI failed to take appropriate action. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Nichols v. Tri-National Logistics, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Marshals seeking damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. Plaintiff alleged that the Marshals’ false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, and use of excessive force violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. On remand, the district court denied in part the Marshals' motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Marshals are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because it was not clearly established in April 2009 that the use of a Tazer against a suspected armed and dangerous felon violated the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the Marshals are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for unreasonable seizure where the twenty-minute detention was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment denying the Marshals' motion for summary judgment and remanded for an order granting qualified immunity to Deputies Franklin and Wallace. View "Wright v. Franklin" on Justia Law