Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Anthony Schmitt, a Christian volunteer, taught a program called “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” at the Minnesota Correctional Facility from 2012 until 2020, when all religious programming was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quest program, which is based on biblical teachings about manhood, was popular among inmates and had been offered voluntarily. In 2023, after religious programming resumed, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC) decided to discontinue Quest, citing concerns that its content conflicted with the department’s diversity, equity, and inclusivity values. The MDOC specifically objected to the program’s biblical perspective on masculinity, its treatment of sexual orientation, and its portrayal of gender roles.Schmitt filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the MDOC’s decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, and constituted a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause. He sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the Quest program. The district court denied the motion, applying the standard from Turner v. Safley, and found that the MDOC’s decision was rationally related to legitimate penological interests, was neutral, and did not violate Schmitt’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The court held that, even assuming the Turner standard applied, the MDOC’s action was not neutral because it targeted Schmitt’s religious viewpoint. The court found that Schmitt was likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claims and that the other factors for a preliminary injunction also favored him. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to reinstate the Quest program pending further proceedings. View "Schmitt v. Rebertus" on Justia Law

A firefighter in Forrest City, Arkansas, was terminated after posting a provocative anti-abortion image on his personal Facebook page. The image, intended to express his pro-life views, was interpreted by some as racially insensitive, particularly because it included the caption “I can’t breathe!”—a phrase associated with protests following George Floyd’s death. After complaints from a retired fire supervisor and others, the firefighter deleted the post. However, the mayor placed him on administrative leave and, following a brief investigation, fired him, citing the public outcry and concerns about the city’s ability to provide public services. The firefighter, who had served over four years without prior incident, learned of his termination through a press release.The firefighter filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging First Amendment retaliation against the mayor in both his individual and official capacities, and against the city for an alleged unwritten policy allowing officials to censor employee speech. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the mayor was entitled to qualified immunity and that there was no evidence of an unwritten policy justifying the official-capacity and policy-based claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the firefighter’s Facebook post addressed a matter of public concern and was made as a private citizen. The court found insufficient evidence of actual or reasonably predicted disruption to the fire department’s operations to justify summary judgment for the defendants. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claims against the mayor and the city, affirmed the dismissal of the unbridled-discretion claim, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Melton v. City of Forrest City, Arkansas" on Justia Law

John Baldwin sued Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging he was unlawfully removed from his position following a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Baldwin, who had degenerative arthritis and underwent a double hip replacement, experienced a bursitis flare-up while working, leading to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Despite being cleared by his orthopedic surgeon and a physical exam, Union Pacific's Chief Medical Officer imposed work restrictions based on Baldwin's exercise tolerance test results, which showed low aerobic capacity and mild hypertension. Baldwin was ultimately prevented from returning to his job.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied both parties' summary judgment motions. Baldwin voluntarily dismissed his disparate impact and ADEA claims, proceeding to trial on the ADA claims for disparate treatment and failure to accommodate. The jury found that Union Pacific discriminated against Baldwin based on a perceived disability but concluded he posed a direct threat to himself. The district court entered judgment for Union Pacific and denied Baldwin’s motion for a new trial, which challenged the jury instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Baldwin argued that the jury instructions misallocated the burden of proof and omitted essential elements of the direct threat defense. The court found that while the direct threat instruction was incomplete, it did not affect the trial's outcome. The business judgment instruction was deemed appropriate and did not mislead the jury. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the instructions, taken as a whole, did not mislead the jury or affect Baldwin's substantial rights. View "Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Patricia Conway, a registered nurse, was terminated from Mercy Hospital St. Louis for refusing to comply with the hospital's COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be vaccinated unless they obtained an approved medical or religious exemption. Conway requested a religious exemption, which was denied. She was subsequently terminated and filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of Mercy Hospital, finding that as a religious organization, the hospital was exempt under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a). Conway appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Mercy Hospital qualifies as a "religious organization" under § 2000e-1(a) due to its structure, mission, and affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church. The court found that the hospital's religious identity and mission, supported by uncontroverted facts, met the criteria for the exemption.The court also rejected Conway's arguments that Mercy Hospital waived its exemption by complying with the CMS mandate and that it should be estopped from invoking the exemption due to its internal vaccine policy. The court concluded that compliance with federal regulations does not waive a statutory exemption and that the hospital's policy did not constitute a clear representation that would induce detrimental reliance.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mercy Hospital, upholding the exemption for religious organizations under Title VII. View "Conway v. Mercy Hospital St. Louis" on Justia Law

Officer Mason Roth shot and killed Bobby Jo Klum, who was walking through a residential neighborhood with a gun to his head, evading arrest, and ignoring officer commands to drop the weapon. Klum’s spouse and mother sued Officer Roth and the City of Davenport under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Klum’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The district court granted qualified immunity to Officer Roth and concluded the City of Davenport was not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment to Officer Roth and the City of Davenport on all claims. The court concluded that Klum’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure was not violated and that Klum did not possess a clearly established right against seizure by deadly force under the circumstances. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to their excessive force claim against Officer Roth and the City of Davenport.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that any right was not clearly established at the time, and therefore, Officer Roth was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the totality of the circumstances, including Klum’s non-compliance, evasion, and proximity to bystanders, justified the use of deadly force. The court also upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Monell claim, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue as to whether the City of Davenport had a policy that directly caused the use of deadly force. View "Klum v. City of Davenport" on Justia Law

Justin Johnson, a pretrial detainee at Jefferson County Jail, was attacked by two other inmates while in protective custody. Johnson sued correctional officers Jacob Schurman and Christopher Taylor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect him and for negligence under Missouri law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding that qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claims and that official immunity and the public duty doctrine barred the negligence claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri determined that Johnson could not show a constitutional violation necessary to overcome qualified immunity. The court found no evidence that the officers were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm, as the attackers were not known to be violent, and Johnson had no prior relationship with them. The court also dismissed the negligence claims, ruling that the officers were protected by official immunity because their actions were discretionary, not ministerial. Additionally, the court found that the public duty doctrine applied, as the officers owed no particular duty to Johnson beyond that owed to the general prison population.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as Johnson failed to show that they were deliberately indifferent to a known risk. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claims, concluding that the officers' actions involved discretionary decisions protected by official immunity. The court did not address the public duty doctrine, as the official immunity finding was sufficient to resolve the negligence claims. View "Johnson v. Schurman" on Justia Law

David Meza, an employee of Union Pacific Railroad Co. for over twenty years, suffered a traumatic brain injury from a non-job-related motorcycle accident. Despite his treating physicians clearing him to return to work, Union Pacific's medical examiner recommended work restrictions due to the risk of future seizures. These restrictions prevented Meza from returning to his previous position, leading him to seek other employment within the company. Meza sued Union Pacific, alleging that the company discriminated against him by regarding him as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific. The court concluded that Union Pacific did not regard Meza as currently disabled but imposed restrictions based on potential future effects of his injury. Meza appealed this decision, arguing that the company's actions constituted illegal discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Meza. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Union Pacific regarded Meza as disabled. The medical examiner's report suggested that Meza's brain injury could be perceived as an impairment, which could support Meza's claim. The court distinguished this case from Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co., noting that Meza's condition could be seen as an existing impairment rather than a future risk.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the lower court to consider other unresolved issues, such as whether Meza was qualified for his job post-accident and whether his condition posed a direct threat to workplace safety. View "Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Eugene Hollow Horn Bear was convicted by a jury of two counts of abusive sexual contact and pled guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender. He was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. Hollow Horn Bear appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for his convictions, a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota initially handled the case. Hollow Horn Bear was indicted on multiple counts, including sexual abuse and failure to register as a sex offender. The district court severed the SORNA counts, and Hollow Horn Bear was tried on the sexual abuse counts. He was acquitted of sexual abuse of a person incapable of consent but convicted of two counts of abusive sexual contact. He later pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, and the court dismissed the remaining count. At sentencing, the court considered his criminal history and mitigating factors but imposed a total term of 108 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as the jury was entitled to believe the testimony of the witnesses despite their intoxication. The court also found no Double Jeopardy violation, as each act of sexual contact constituted a separate offense under the relevant statutes. Finally, the court determined that the sentence was substantively reasonable, given the serious nature of the offense and the district court’s consideration of the mitigating factors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. View "United States v. Hollow Horn Bear" on Justia Law

Hamdi A. Mohamud, a plaintiff, sued Heather Weyker, a St. Paul police officer, for wrongful arrest. Weyker, while working as a cross-deputized federal agent on a federal task force, allegedly lied to protect a federal witness, Muna Abdulkadir, leading to Mohamud's arrest. Weyker falsely claimed that Mohamud and others were trying to intimidate Abdulkadir, resulting in their arrest for witness tampering. Mohamud spent about 25 months in custody before the charges were dismissed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota previously reviewed the case. Mohamud's claims were based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied Mohamud's requests for limited discovery and to amend her complaint, concluding that further discovery would be futile and that the proposed amendment would not change the outcome. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Weyker, following the reasoning from a similar case, Yassin v. Weyker, which held that Weyker did not act under color of state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Weyker acted under federal authority, not state law, when she protected a federal witness in a federal investigation. The court found that the new facts alleged by Mohamud did not change the analysis from the Yassin case. The court also concluded that further discovery would not have made a difference and upheld the district court's denial of Mohamud's discovery request. View "Mohamud v. Weyker" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Joseph, an inmate working in a metal plant at a Missouri prison, injured his thumb while operating a "press-brake" machine. Joseph sued his supervisor, Kurt Schmiedeskamp, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Schmiedeskamp subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by instructing him not to use the machine's hand restraints, which were designed to prevent such injuries. Joseph claimed that Schmiedeskamp told him not to use the restraints because they slowed production.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Schmiedeskamp's motion for summary judgment, which argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Schmiedeskamp then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Schmiedeskamp was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Joseph failed to show that Schmiedeskamp's actions violated clearly established constitutional rights. The court distinguished this case from Ambrose v. Young, noting that Schmiedeskamp's response to Joseph's question about the hand restraints did not demonstrate that he knew the machine presented a substantial risk of harm. The court also cited other cases involving inmate injuries in industrial settings, which indicated that the law was not clearly established in this area. Consequently, the court concluded that Schmiedeskamp's conduct did not meet the standard of deliberate indifference required to overcome qualified immunity. View "Joseph v. Schmiedeskamp" on Justia Law