Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Karl Rabenhorst, a former Navy officer employed by FEMA, alleged that he was subjected to age and sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after being removed from a Puerto Rico disaster relief operation and later suspended without pay. The incidents leading to these adverse actions included reprimands for inappropriate interactions with state officials and insubordination, such as sending unauthorized emails and making disrespectful remarks. During the Puerto Rico deployment, Rabenhorst used derogatory language toward younger female coworkers, which prompted his removal from the operation.After his removal, Rabenhorst filed internal complaints, including a grievance with the DHS Office of Equal Rights, alleging discrimination and retaliation. FEMA investigated and ultimately denied his claims, issuing a final agency decision in 2021. Rabenhorst then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, asserting violations of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Homeland Security, finding that Rabenhorst failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as he did not meet his employer’s legitimate expectations and could not show that similarly situated employees outside his protected classes were treated more favorably. The court also concluded that Rabenhorst provided no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that any adverse conduct was based on his age or sex. Regarding retaliation, the court found no causal link between his protected activity and the suspension decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed, holding that Rabenhorst did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. View "Rabenhorst v. Noem" on Justia Law

Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree each had their vehicles disposed of by the City of Chicago after failing to pay multiple traffic tickets. The City acted under a municipal code provision that allows for immobilization, towing, and eventual disposition of vehicles registered to owners with outstanding violations. O’Donnell’s vehicle was sold to a towing company at scrap value; Goree’s vehicle was relinquished to a lienholder. Neither was compensated or had proceeds offset against their ticket debt.After these events, O’Donnell and Goree filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Their complaint alleged that the City’s forfeiture scheme was facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Illinois constitution, and included a state-law unjust enrichment claim. They also asserted a Monell claim against the towing company, URT United Road Towing, Inc. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim, finding that the vehicle forfeiture under the traffic code was not a taking.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the City’s graduated forfeiture scheme is an exercise of its police power to enforce traffic laws rather than a taking for public use. The court reasoned that this type of law enforcement forfeiture does not trigger the Takings Clause of either the federal or Illinois constitutions. The court further found that because there was no constitutional violation, the plaintiffs’ Monell and unjust enrichment claims also failed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims. View "O'Donnell v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, alleging that the agencies were arresting noncitizens without a warrant in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). After years of litigation, the parties entered into a Consent Decree in 2021, approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 2022. The Decree required the agencies to issue a policy statement, train officers, and document compliance with § 1357(a)(2). It also outlined procedures for enforcement and modification if violations were alleged.Prior to the Decree’s scheduled expiration in May 2025, Plaintiffs moved to enforce its terms and to extend its duration, asserting substantial noncompliance by Defendants. While these motions were pending, a DHS official declared the Decree terminated. On October 7, 2025, the district court found Defendants had violated the Decree, extended its term by 118 days, and ordered compliance-related relief. Later, Plaintiffs sought release or alternative detention for hundreds of individuals allegedly arrested in violation of the Decree. On November 13, 2025, the district court ordered the release of 13 individuals whom both parties agreed were arrested unlawfully, and additionally ordered release or alternatives for approximately 442 “potential class members,” pending determinations of violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Defendants’ emergency motion to stay the district court’s October 7 and November 13 orders. The Seventh Circuit denied the request to stay the extension of the Consent Decree, holding that Defendants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the extension violated 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). However, the court granted the stay as to the November 13 release order for those arrested pursuant to I-200 warrants and for “potential class members” pending individualized determinations under the Decree. The ruling sets forth the standards for stays and clarifies the limitations of § 1252(f)(1) in the context of class-wide injunctive relief and consent decree enforcement. View "Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

A Palestinian American tenant displayed a Palestinian flag in her apartment window to express solidarity with her heritage. In response to a complaint from another resident, the property manager, following a building-wide “neutrality” policy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, instructed her to remove the flag. The tenant informed management that her actions reflected pride in her heritage, but was told this was “unacceptable” and warned of eviction if she did not comply. After refusing to remove the flag, she received a notice terminating her tenancy, which cited a lease violation for hanging the flag outside the window. The tenant alleged this justification was pretextual, as management had indicated the flag would not be allowed anywhere, even inside the window. She also claimed other tenants displayed flags or decorations in their windows without consequence, but did not specify that any involved the Israel-Palestine conflict.She filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and state laws. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and moved to dismiss most claims. The district court granted the motion, holding that her complaint did not plausibly allege national origin discrimination, as it did not show the policy was motivated by her national origin or that it had a disparate impact on Palestinians.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the tenant failed to allege facts showing intentional national origin discrimination or disparate impact under the FHA. The court also found her interference claim under § 3617 of the FHA insufficient, and determined that the district court properly dismissed the state law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims. View "Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC" on Justia Law

Juan Mendez was approached by two Chicago police officers investigating a gunshot detected near his home early one morning. As the officers arrived and questioned Mendez and a juvenile on the porch, Mendez suddenly fled, jumping a fence and running down an alley. The officers pursued him, with one warning that Mendez had something in his waistband and then in his hand. During the chase, Mendez fell, got up, and turned toward the officers with an object in his hand. One officer, perceiving a threat, shot Mendez three times, resulting in paralysis from the waist down.Mendez filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the City of Chicago and the two officers, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, battery under Illinois law, and seeking indemnification from the City. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that, based on body-camera footage and the circumstances, a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to believe Mendez posed a threat to the officers’ safety. The court also found that, without a Fourth Amendment violation, Mendez could not prevail on his state law claims. Mendez appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the record independently and affirmed the district court. The Seventh Circuit held that Officer Szczur had probable cause to believe that Mendez posed a threat of serious physical harm under the totality of the circumstances, making the use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the state law battery and indemnification claims failed for the same reasons. The judgment for the defendants was affirmed. View "Mendez v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Several current and former employees of the City of Chicago, including police officers and an emergency management officer, challenged the City’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy, issued in October 2021, required city employees to either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo regular testing and report their status through an employee portal. Religious exemptions from vaccination were available and granted to these plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs objected to having to submit their vaccination status and test results in the portal, arguing that this reporting requirement violated their constitutional and statutory rights.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA). The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. It found the Title VII claims factually implausible and concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege a religious practice conflicting with the reporting requirements. The court also held that, since the plaintiffs were granted their requested exemptions from vaccination, they could not succeed on claims based on their refusal to comply with reporting requirements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the policy’s reporting requirements were neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational-basis review, which the policy satisfied. The court determined that the reporting and disciplinary provisions were rationally related to the City’s legitimate interest in public health and workplace safety. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all constitutional, statutory, and state-law claims, finding the plaintiffs’ arguments insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. View "Kondilis v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

A woman in Indiana was placed on probation in 2011 and assigned to probation officer Miroslav Radiceski in late 2012. Prior to this assignment, Radiceski’s supervisors, Chief Probation Officer Jan Parsons and Judge Clarence Murray, were aware of a previous complaint from a female probationer (A.R.) who reported that Radiceski had behaved inappropriately by asking personal questions and touching her to view her tattoos. After investigating, Parsons and Murray found no concrete proof and considered the incident an unsubstantiated allegation. They temporarily restricted Radiceski from supervising female probationers, but this was later lifted due to staffing shortages, and he was reassigned to supervise women, including the plaintiff. In 2013, Radiceski sexually assaulted and raped the plaintiff during her probation meetings. The plaintiff did not report the misconduct at the time, fearing retaliation and possible incarceration, but Radiceski was later suspended, fired, indicted, and convicted of official misconduct.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials, including Parsons and Murray, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to her safety in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Parsons and Murray, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law indicating their actions were unconstitutional. The plaintiff’s claim against Radiceski proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict in her favor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that Parsons and Murray were not deliberately indifferent because, although they were aware of troubling conduct, their response did not amount to a conscious disregard of a known risk of rape. The court concluded that qualified immunity protected the supervisors from liability. View "Bostic v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Eddie Bolden was arrested in 1994 for double murder and attempted murder, convicted by a jury in 1996, and sentenced to life in prison. After more than 22 years incarcerated, his conviction was vacated by Illinois courts in 2016 due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and the State dismissed all charges, leading to his immediate release. Bolden subsequently filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Chicago and several police officers, alleging constitutional and state law violations stemming from his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. After delays, including judicial reassignment and the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial occurred in October 2021. The jury found in Bolden’s favor, awarding $25 million in compensatory damages for pain, suffering, and loss of normal life, plus punitive damages against two individual defendants. The district court later granted Bolden’s motion to amend the judgment to include $7.6 million in prejudgment interest, calculated from the date his conviction was vacated to the entry of final judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether prejudgment interest could be awarded on noneconomic damages and whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the interest. The Seventh Circuit held that prejudgment interest is available as a matter of law for noneconomic damages in federal civil rights cases, reaffirming its precedent. However, the court found that interest should only be awarded on past damages, not future damages, and remanded for the district court to apportion the jury’s verdict accordingly. In all other respects, the district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Bolden v. Pesavento" on Justia Law

A 69-year-old employee of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, who previously had a long career with the Chicago Police Department, was terminated from his position as Assistant Chief of the Electronic Monitoring Unit. The termination followed an internal investigation into his work performance, which included allegations that he was absent from his post without authorization, failed to communicate with his team, and used work hours and resources for personal business. The investigation, initiated after a complaint by his supervisor, involved interviews with colleagues and a review of GPS and work records, ultimately concluding that he had neglected his duties on multiple occasions.After his termination, the employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against his supervisor in her individual capacity and the Sheriff in his official capacity, alleging age discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment (via 42 U.S.C. § 1983), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). He also brought an indemnification claim against Cook County. During discovery, he presented affidavits from other older officers alleging ageist comments and discriminatory treatment by the same supervisor. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding insufficient evidence of age-based disparate treatment or causation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to identify similarly situated comparators who were treated more favorably, and that the evidence did not support a finding that any alleged discriminatory animus by the supervisor proximately caused the termination. The court also found that the internal investigation and the ultimate decisionmaker’s independent review provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, precluding liability under the Fourteenth Amendment, ADEA, and IHRA. View "Gaines v Dart" on Justia Law

Bernard Mims spent a decade in prison after being convicted of murder, a conviction later vacated when the State’s Attorney’s Office lost confidence in the case for reasons unrelated to the claim at issue here. Mims then brought a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Chicago and several police detectives. He alleged, among other things, that two detectives violated his due process rights by failing to disclose an audio recording of a conversation between two individuals, one of whom had previously claimed involvement in the murder. Mims argued that this recording was exculpatory because it implicated someone else in the crime.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. As relevant to this appeal, the district court found that Mims had not produced evidence showing that the detectives concealed or withheld the recording from the prosecutor. The court also concluded that the recording was not material under Brady v. Maryland, and, alternatively, that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Mims failed to present evidence that the detectives intentionally or recklessly concealed the recording from the prosecution. The court emphasized that the prosecutor had knowledge of and access to the recordings through the court file and that the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence primarily rests with the prosecution. Because Mims could not show suppression by the detectives, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Mims v City of Chicago" on Justia Law