Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiffs, five female Drug Court participants, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages for injuries resulting from sexual abuse by Scott Edwards, a Lieutenant in the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department, while he acted as “tracker” for the Drug Court. The district court granted Defendant Graham-Thompson qualified immunity and denied Defendant Krigbaum, the County Sheriff, qualified immunity. Krigbaum appealed. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on Krigbaum, concluding that he did not have notice of a pattern of conduct by Edwards that violated a clearly established constitutional right; plaintiffs presented no evidence that Krigbaum had knowledge of sexual misconduct by Edwards that would create an inference Krigbaum turned a blind eye to or consciously disregarded a substantial risk of the constitutional harm Edwards was causing - conscience-shocking violations of plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights by a member of the Sheriff’s Department performing duties for the Drug Court; and the policy in question was designed to protect persons and did not “give rise to unconstitutional conditions.” View "S.M. v. Krigbaum" on Justia Law

Linn State's Board of Regents adopted a mandatory drug screening policy. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the drug screening policy. In Barrett v. Claycomb, a panel of this court reviewed an interlocutory appeal, discussing, and ultimately reversing, the grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs on their facial challenge to the drug testing policy. On remand, plaintiffs clarified their claims to assert an as-applied challenge to the very same policy. The district court, in part, permanently enjoined Linn State from conducting any further collection, testing, or reporting. On appeal, Linn State challenged the district court's grant of a permanent injunction and subsequent grant of attorneys' fees in favor of plaintiffs. The court concluded that, on balance, testing the entire student population entering Linn State is reasonable and hence constitutional and an effective means of addressing Linn State's interest in providing "a safe, healthy, and productive environment for everyone who learns and works at LSTC by detecting, preventing, and deterring drug use and abuse among students." Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the case. View "Kittle-Aikeley v. Claycomb" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, six homecare providers, filed suit challenging Minnesota's Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation Act, Minn. Stat. 179A.54, 179A.06. The Act allows homecare providers for Medicaid program participants to unionize. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause claim because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 152, does not preempt Minnesota's regulation of domestic service workers; plaintiffs' state preemption argument against the SEIU failed because even if the state laws conflict irreconcilably, the law passed most recently by the legislature controls and thus the Act trumps the older statute's definition of "employees;" the district court properly dismissed the providers' tortious interference claim against the state defendants because federal courts are unable to order state officials to conform their conduct to state law; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' Contract Clause claims where plaintiffs did not have authority to negotiate compensation or benefits terms with program participants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Greene v. Dayton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an incarcerated felon, filed suit against defendants, alleging that the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105(a)(1)(B), violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. An employee of the police department denied plaintiff's request for information regarding an individual plaintiff had assaulted because the Act only permits an incarcerated felon to request information of public record through an attorney. The court concluded that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendants because the Act does not violate the equal protection clause where the Act's limitation on those who many benefit from the law is rationally related to at least two legitimate government purposes: the prevention of unlawful use of the statute like harassing or threatening a witness or victim and conserving government resources; the Act does not violate plaintiff's due process right to access the courts because he has not shown that he will suffer an actual injury as a result of the Act's exclusion; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motions because his claims failed on the merits and he was not entitled to additional discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gregory Holt v. Michelle Howard" on Justia Law

Spectra filed suit against the City, alleging that the City violated federal and Missouri law by requiring Spectra to comply with a local ordinance governing public rights of way. Determining that Spectra's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim is properly before the court, the court concluded that section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 253, does not authorize a private right of action for damages under section 1983. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Spectra's section 1983 claim. The court also concluded that the district court properly abstained under Colorado River, which permits federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction over cases where "parallel" state court litigation is pending, meaning that there is "a substantial likelihood that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court." Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's first request for attorney fees and the City's renewed fee request. Spectra did not continue actively to pursue its section 1983 claim after the district court dismissed it, but simply reasserted it for the purpose of preserving its rights on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Spectra Commc'n Grp. v. City of Cameron, MO" on Justia Law