Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In November 2010, Board of Education Chief Area Officer Coates sent Bordelon , the long-tenured principal of the Kozminski Academy, notice of a pre‐discipline hearing based on insubordination in failing to respond to a parent issue; failing to arrange a requested meeting regarding the arrest of Kozminski students; and failing to respond to Coates’s email. Bordelon received a five‐day suspension without pay, which he never served. In December 2010, Coates evaluated Bordelon as needing improvement, noting that Kozminski was on academic probation for a second year with test scores trending downward. Coates reassigned Bordelon to home with full pay pending an investigation into improperly replacing asbestos‐containing tile at Kozminski; purchasing irregularities; and tampering with school computers in a manner that impeded Board access to Kozminski’s records. In early 2011, Kozminski's Local School Council voted to not renew Bordelon’s contract. Bordelon, age 63, believed that Coates, exercised undue influence over the decision, based his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Board, stating that that Bordelon did not prove discrimination and that there was substantial evidence of independent reasons for not renewing Bordelon’s contract, making it unlikely that Coates influenced the Board. View "Bordelon v. Bd of Educ. of the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

The 1983 Shakman Accord resulted from resolution of political patronage litigation; to eliminate political considerations in employment decisions the city agreed to create and implement a hiring plan to effectuate the goal of eradicating political patronage. Shakman “adds speech and political affiliation to the list” of impermissible bases of employment discrimination delineated by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Eight applicants for the position of police officer with the Chicago Police Department, disqualified from consideration, sued the city, claiming violations of the city’s 2011 Hiring Plan, violation of the Shakman Accord, and equal protection violations under the Illinois Constitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the Shakman claims, which were filed beyond the 180-day time limit and were, therefore, barred by the statute of limitations.. View "Bonnstetter v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Deets, a white construction worker, worked for MTA on a federally assisted project to build a bridge (the Stan Musial Veteran’s Memorial Bridge) across the Mississippi River. MTA’s collective bargaining agreement defined seniority for purposes of layoffs and recalls. The Missouri Department of Transportation’s contract with MTA contained federally mandated goals for participation by minorities (14.7%) and women (6.9%) on the project. Deets claimed racial discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2, and 42 U.S.C. 1981, asserting that he was laid off because management was concerned about meeting minority participation goals. The Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment for the defendants, finding material disputes concerning the basis for the layoff: statements to Deets about “minority numbers” and the immediate hiring of a replacement. View "Deets v. Massman Constr. Co." on Justia Law

In 1992 plaintiff, then age 48, was convicted of having sexually assaulted a boy repeatedly for five years beginning when the boy was eight years old. Before his probation expired he was convicted of having (in 1988) sexually assaulted a nine‐year‐old girl and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was paroled after six years. His parole was revoked a year later after he admitted that he had sexual fantasies about two girls, ages four and five. Scheduled to be released in 2005, he was, instead, civilly committed as a “sexually violent person,” Wis. Stat. ch. 980. He was released in 2010, based on the opinion of a psychologist that he was no longer more likely than not to commit further sexual assaults. A 2006 Wisconsin law required that persons released from civil commitment (after 1/1/2008) for sexual offenses wear a GPS monitoring device 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives. Wis. Stat. 301.48. The district court found the Wisconsin monitoring statute unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that a study by the National Institute of Justice found that GPS monitoring of sex criminals has a greater effect in reducing recidivism than traditional parole supervision. View "Belleau v. Wall" on Justia Law

Donelson, an Illinois prisoner, lost a year of accumulated good time as punishment for two incidents involving the same guard. He claimed that the deprivation occurred without his having an opportunity to call supporting witnesses and to offer supporting evidence and that he was denied access to recordings of the incidents. The state appellate court denied relief without reaching the merits. The court’s reason, not mentioned at any earlier stage of the case, was that the prisoner had not followed the instruction on the paper form for requesting witnesses or evidence to tear off the top portion of the form. Donelson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court ruled against Donelson, partly on the merits and partly on a procedural ground. The Seventh Circuit upheld the partial merits ruling but vacated the procedural ruling. The state court’s “novel ruling carried bureaucratic concerns about paperwork to an unreasonable extreme and does not bar federal consideration of the prisoner’s constitutional claim on the merits.” View "Donelson v. Pfister" on Justia Law

Putnam County, Indiana police officer Smith, with others, pursued Warren, for whom an arrest warrant was outstanding. The police were able to box in Warren's truck with their cars. Warren got out of the cab, jumped onto the truck’s bed, and lay down on his back. Officers followed, picked him up, and handed him to officers on the ground. All the officers except Smith testified that they had Warren under control when Smith punched him in the face with a closed fist. Warren bled extensively and was taken in an ambulance to a hospital. Smith said “I guarantee I broke that mother fucker’s nose.” Months later Smith and others were summoned to a violent domestic dispute. Smith handcuffed the male suspect, Land, and led him toward his patrol car, then raised Land in the air, dropped him, and drove his (Smith’s) knee into Land’s back, causing him to defecate. Later, Smith bragged that he had done the same thing before. Convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 242 by depriving two persons of their constitutional right not to be subjected to the intentional use of unreasonable and excessive force, Smith was sentenced to 14 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence, questioning whether the judge’s review provided any basis for thinking 14 months a proper sentence for Smith, given a guidelines range of 33-41 months. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Sedgwick is a claims management services company. Bagwe, who was born in India, began working in Sedgwick’s Chicago office in 2001. She was promoted to Assistant Manager II in 2005. She was asked to serve as Interim Operations Manager in 2007 and was promoted to Operations Manager. A Managing Director made the promotion decision. Bagwe’s direct supervisor, counseled against promoting Bagwe, indicating that Bagwe had poor leadership skills and had not provided sufficient direction to subordinates. In the following months, one of Bagwe’s subordinates asked to be reassigned; Bagwe repeatedly complained about her compensation; Bagwe had confrontations with and made accusations against coworkers; and Bagwe was the subject of performance improvement plan. In 2009 she was terminated with statements that she had a “continuing lack of trust” that had “become a distraction to the business.” Her replacement was a white, American male. Bagwe filed claims under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and the Illinois Human Rights Act, claiming that Sedgwick had paid her a comparatively low salary because of her race and national origin and that she was terminated for retaliatory and racially discriminatory reasons. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, noting that Bagwe had not identified a similarly-situated employee who was paid more. View "Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

A Wisconsin jury convicted Ramirez of first‐degree intentional homicide in 2003. Ramirez discovered that his interpreter at trial has failed certification tests and has been declared ineligible for state compensation for his services; he claims that the court subsequently failed to execute a subpoena or obtain the telephonic testimony of appellate counsel and an expert witness on the translator certification process. In 2014 Ramirez filed his second petition for federal habeas relief, which the district court denied. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Ramirez did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), View "Flores-Ramirez v. Foster" on Justia Law

Nelson was driving home one night when, he claims four Chicago police officers in two squad cars pulled him over, pointed a gun in his face, threatened to kill him, handcuffed him, and searched his car for no apparent reason. The officers have no recollection of the stop; squad car​ computers confirm that they ran Nelson’s name through the law-enforcement database at the time of the stop and turned up nothing that would justify stopping him and searching his car. Nelson sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. A jury found for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit ordered a new trial. The judge should not have admitted evidence of Nelson’s arrest record, nor allowed the defense attorney to cross-examine Nelson about other civil suits he had filed against the city. The judge also improperly allowed one of the officers to offer generalized testimony about when the police might be justified in using firearms and handcuffs during a traffic stop. The errors were not harmless. View "Nelson v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Jaburek, a woman of Mexican descent, began working for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at its Des Plaines, Illinois, office in 1987. After various promotions and raises, followed by reassignment to her earlier position, there was a dispute about her responsibilities. She filed suit, alleging that the FAA paid her less than other employees who did the same work that she did but did not share her protected class status, and that the FAA retaliated against her for complaining about such discrimination, asserting: failure to promote in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e.; violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d); and a Title VII retaliation claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the FAA, stating that Jaburek failed to produce the necessary evidence to establish prima facie claims for any of her causes of action. View "Jaburek v. Foxx" on Justia Law