Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, six drivers, filed suit against the City alleging that the Automatic Traffic Enforcement (ATE) system violates federal and state law. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs argue that the district court should not have relied on Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids because the facts here are materially different. The court concluded that Cedar Rapids and Des Moines offer direct access to the district court or an optional administrative proceeding with de novo appellate review. Based on this court’s holding, the other differences that the drivers allege are irrelevant. Therefore, plaintiffs' claims are addressed in the Hughes opinion. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Brooks v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former building commissioner of the city, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for engaging in protected speech. The district court granted summary judgment to the city. The court concluded that the present record does not support a conclusion that the city is liable because a municipality cannot be held liable under section 1983 solely because it employs a tortfeasor. In this case, plaintiff maintains that the city is liable because her harm stemmed from an official municipal policy or an unofficial municipal custom. The court explained that plaintiff tangentially refers to other evidence of the custom that she claims victimized her, but the materials cited reveal only unsubstantiated suspicions. Because no reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence demonstrated a reasonable dispute about the presence of a continuing, widespread, and persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct that led to her termination, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bolderson v. City of Wentzville" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was removed from the Associate Degree Nursing Program for behavior unbecoming of the profession and transgression of professional boundaries after CLC received student complaints about plaintiff's posts on his Facebook page. Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of his First Amendment rights and due process. After some defendants were dismissed, the district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants. The court concluded that, given the strong state interest in regulating health professions, teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First Amendment; plaintiff made no allegation, and presented no evidence, that defendants’ reliance on the Nurses Association Code of Ethics was a pretext for viewpoint, or any other kind of discrimination; college administrators and educators in a professional school have discretion to require compliance with recognized standards of the profession, both on and off campus, so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns; plaintiff's contention, that his offensive Facebook posts were unrelated to any course assignment or requirements, is factually flawed where the posts were directed at classmates, involved their conduct in the Nursing Program, and included a physical threat related to their medical studies; plaintiff's statements had a direct impact on the students' educational experience and had the potential to impact patient care; and the First Amendment did not bar educator Frisch from making the determination that plaintiff was unable to meet the professional demands of being a nurse. The court rejected plaintiff's due process and remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keefe v. Adams" on Justia Law

After plaintiff's convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree robbery were vacated, plaintiff filed suit against several detectives who investigated the murder. In this interlocutory appeal, the detectives challenge the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the court concluded that the detectives raised the qualified-immunity issue on the face of the papers, the court remanded the case to the district court for consideration of the motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In considering that motion, the court explained that the district court can decide as a preliminary matter whether the detectives discussed the issue of qualified immunity in sufficient detail and with sufficient citations to undisputed record evidence to enable the district court to rule on the matter. View "Ferguson v. Short" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her former employer, Trinity Health, and former supervisors violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the North Dakota Human Rights Act, N.D. Cent. Code 14-02.4-03(1). The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiff, concluding that she failed to show she was capable of performing the essential functions of her position, and that Trinity did not have a duty to reassign plaintiff to an alternate position. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff produced evidence that she could have performed the essential functions of her position with reasonable accommodation. In this case, plaintiff's written notification that she would be unable to complete the basic life support certification without medical clearance, and her statement that she required four months of physical therapy before completing the certification, could readily have been understood to constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation of her condition. Consequently, there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff made a request for an accommodation sufficient to trigger Trinity’s duty to engage in the interactive process of identifying a reasonable accommodation. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kowitz v. Trinity Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Crete, alleging it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., by requiring a medical examination and discriminating on the basis of a perceived disability. Crete required its truck drivers with Body Mass Indexes (BMIs) of 35 or greater to get medical examinations to determine whether they had obstructive sleep apnea. When Crete ordered plaintiff to undergo an examination because his BMI was over 35, he refused. The district court granted summary judgment to Crete. The court concluded that the district court property admitted an expert's testimony regarding obesity and obstructive sleep apnea; by the undisputed facts, the sleep study requirement is job-related because it deals with a condition that impairs drivers’ abilities to operate their vehicle; the requirement is also consistent with business necessity; the district court correctly granted Crete summary judgment on the medical-examination claim where Crete carried its burden of showing it defined the class reasonably; and the undisputed evidence shows that Crete suspended plaintiff for refusing to submit to a lawful medical examination, which does not violate the ADA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Parker v. Crete Carrier Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the University of Minnesota, David Andersen, and Ted Swem, alleging sexual harassment under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Swem was a mentor and guide to plaintiff. The district court denied Swem's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to review claims raised in this interlocutory appeal based on the purely legal issue of whether the facts, taken most favorably to plaintiff, support a finding that defendant violated her clearly established constitutional rights. On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that Swem is not entitled to qualified immunity and that summary judgment should be denied. Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that Swem’s conduct toward her was unwelcome harassment, and that it was serious enough to alter a term or condition of her employment. She also showed that Swem’s conduct violated a clearly established right, based on the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jenkins v. Swem" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated from her job at ABM, she filed suit against her former employer, alleging that she was unlawfully terminated based on age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. 363A.08. The court concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to ABM. In this case, plaintiff did not meet her burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact that ABM’s proffered legitimate reason for her termination was pretext for age discrimination. View "Haggenmiller v. ABM Parking Serv." on Justia Law

After charges against plaintiff for disorderly conduct and interference with lawful process were dropped, plaintiff filed suit alleging various claims against government officials. The court affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim because the law regarding warrantless misdemeanor arrests for offenses committed outside the presence of the arresting officer is not clearly established under the Fourth Amendment; plaintiff failed to show a violation of any clearly established First and Fourth Amendment right; in regard to claims of unlawful arrest under Minnesota law, the court did not believe that the officers had sufficiently clear knowledge of what was required of them under the circumstances and the officers did not act maliciously or willfully in violating plaintiff's rights; and, likewise, plaintiff's claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs necessarily fails. The court agreed with the district court that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's federal law claims, official immunity for plaintiff's state law claim, and that plaintiff has not made out a claim under Monell. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was convicted of murder and the charges were subsequently dropped when another person confessed to the murder, plaintiff filed a civil damage action against five individuals and Stone County, Missouri, alleging various claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Missouri state law. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed Stone County, the County Sheriff, and the Sheriff’s criminal investigation supervisor. The court denied the motions of Stone County Prosecutor Matt Selby, lead investigator Karl Wagner, and investigator Orville Choate, who has not appealed, rejecting their claims of absolute, qualified, and official immunity. Selby and Wagner appealed. Plaintiff argues that investigators Wagner and Choate violated his right to due process as defined in Brady v. Maryland. In this case, the district court erred by failing to adopt the more precise mens rea standard adopted in the court's controlling opinion, Villasana v. Wilhoit. Therefore, the district court must apply this controlling standard when the issue again arises on remand, whether before, during, or after trial. The court also concluded that, on this record, it was error to deny Prosecutor Selby qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that Wagner and Selby violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of which a reasonable person would have had. Finally, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying Wagner and Selby qualified immunity from the Sixth Amendment damage claim because no section 1983 precedents give these defendants fair and clear warning of what the Constitution requires, and plaintiff failed to put in the summary judgment record evidence of whether defense counsel at trial moved to suppress or exclude testimony by Parker and Pollard because it was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stewart v. Wagner" on Justia Law