Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff is a deaf man who can understand only about 30% of verbal communication through lipreading. He communicates primarily through American Sign Language (ASL). Plaintiff worked for O’Reilly Auto Parts (O’Reilly) as an inbound materials handler. He claims that the company discriminated against him in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it did not provide him with the reasonable accommodations that he requested for his disability. He alleged that he requested but did not receive an ASL interpreter for various meetings, training, and a company picnic. He also alleged that he asked for text messages summarizing nightly pre-shift meetings but did not receive them either. The district court, acting by consent through a magistrate judge, granted O’Reilly’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA claim.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of O’Reilly. The court remanded for further proceedings involving Plaintiff’s claim that O’Reilly violated the ADA by failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations regarding the nightly pre-shift safety meetings and regarding his disciplinary proceedings involving attendance issues. The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact do exist about whether two of Plaintiff’s requested accommodations relate to his essential job functions and whether the failure to provide those two accommodations led to an “adverse employment decision.” If Plaintiff’s allegations turn out to be the actual facts, there was a violation of Title I of the ADA, and that means summary judgment against him was inappropriate. View "Teddy Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts" on Justia Law

Over a four-day stretch during his incarceration at Walker State Prison in Georgia, Plaintiff failed to receive his prescribed seizure medication. On the fourth night, Plaintiff had two seizures that he claimed caused permanent brain damage. Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Plaintiff sued five prison employees, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to all five defendants on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff died from causes unrelated to the seizures that he suffered while in prison. His sister pursued his claims on appeal as the personal representative of his estate.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that none of them was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs and, accordingly, that none of them violated the Eighth Amendment—and, accordingly, that the district court was correct to grant all of them summary judgment. The court held that a deliberate-indifference plaintiff must prove (among other things) that the defendant acted with “more than gross negligence.” The court wrote that it echoes the district court’s lament that Defendants’ “careless actions and their systemic communication failures caused Plaintiff serious suffering” and “irreparably altered his life.” And the court reiterated that “while engaged in the business of prison medicine”—no less so than on the outside, so to speak—“the essential command of the Hippocratic Oath is ‘first, do no harm.’” Even so, the bar to proving an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim is appropriately high, and the court concluded that Plaintiff hasn’t met it. View "Betty Wade v. Georgia Correctional Health, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a security guard, alleged that his employer set two different “regular rates” and that one of those rates was an artificial one that his employer designed to avoid complying with the FLSA’s overtime-compensation requirement. When Plaintiff became a security guard for Defendant Regional Security Services, Inc., his established regular rate was $13.00, and he typically worked a forty-hour week. But seven months after Regional Security first started scheduling Plaintiff to work overtime, it reduced his rate to $11.15 per hour. Regional Security then stopped scheduling Plaintiff to work overtime hours and, at the same time, restored his non-overtime pay rate to $13.00 per hour. At issue is whether Plaintiff’s “regular rate” was $13.00 per hour or $11.15 per hour during the year or so that he worked overtime hours and earned $11.15 per hour.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded. The court explained that Plaintiff’s allegations support his theory that Regional Security set an artificial $11.15 rate during the year that it scheduled him to work significant overtime hours so that it could avoid paying him $19.50 for his overtime hours. During the year that Plaintiff worked significant overtime hours, his reduced $11.15 rate caused him to earn on average $13.00 per hour for all sixty hours in a sixty-hour workweek. Plus, Regional Security immediately reverted to paying Plaintiff’s $13.00 rate when it stopped scheduling him to work overtime hours. Accordingly, the court held that these allegations plausibly support Plaintiff’s claims. View "David Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued three Defendant correctional officers under Section 1983 for alleged violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. While Plaintiff was in his prison cell, two correctional officers sprayed a chemical agent on him. The parties contest why the officers did this: Plaintiff says it was in retaliation for his protected speech; the correctional officers respond that it was to stop Plaintiff from tampering with a sprinkler in his cell. Shortly after that, Plaintiff alleged that a supervising officer instructed the prison staff not to feed him—again, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s protected speech. Plaintiff sued the two officers and the supervising officer for violating his First and Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the two correctional officers under Heck v. Humphrey because it concluded that the success of Plaintiff’s claims required a showing that his prison disciplinary conviction was invalid. But although the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages against the supervising officer, it allowed Plaintiff’s demand for nominal damages to go to trial. The jury returned a verdict for the supervising officer.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the two correctional officers. The court explained that Heck does not bar Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, and even if Heck applies to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. The court agreed with Plaintiff that the district court erred in dismissing his claims for compensatory and punitive damages. View "Wendall Jermaine Hall v. Lieutenant Peter Merola" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were employees of VMSB’s restaurant. They argue that VMSB failed to meet its minimum wage and overtime pay obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and comparable Florida laws. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged three counts, and both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs moved the district court to approve the settlement and to “direct the clerk to dismiss Count III” with prejudice. The district court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and entered judgment for VMSB on Counts I and II. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding Counts I and II.   The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides only for the dismissal of an entire action. Any attempt to use this rule to dismiss a single claim, or anything less than the entire action, will be invalid—just like it would be under Rule 41(a)(1). Because the parties here attempted to use Rule 41(a) to dismiss a single count and not an entire lawsuit, a final judgment was never rendered. Accordingly, the court found that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. View "Israel Rosell, et al. v. VMSB, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging sexual abuse by Defendant, a pastor at a church Plaintiff attended more than thirty years ago. A magistrate judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In response, Plaintiff submitted a filing seeking to voluntarily dismiss the case and to receive a refund of his court fees. The district court, rather than treating Plaintiff’s filing as a self-executing notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 referred the matter to the magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that Plaintiff’s requests be denied. The magistrate judge made that recommendation in an attempt to further the purposes of the “three-strikes provision” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and this appeal followed.  Plaintiff, represented by counsel on appeal, contends that the district court erred by invoking the PLRA’s purposes to trump his clear right to voluntarily dismiss the action under Rule 41.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment. The court explained that it found no language in the PLRA purporting to limit or condition a plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss an action “without a court order” under Rule 41(a) in the prisoner-litigation context. Plaintiff acted within the bounds of Rule 41(a) by filing a notice of dismissal before Defendant responded. That notice was effective immediately upon filing and deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case. View "Jason Elliott Smith v. Delwyn Gerald Williams" on Justia Law

Eberspaecher North America (“ENA”), is a company that manufactures car components with its headquarters in Novi, Michigan and six other locations across the country. An employee at one of these locations—ENA’s Northport, Alabama plant—complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) that he was fired for taking protected absences under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). An EEOC Commissioner charged ENA with discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”), listing only the Northport facility in the written charge. The EEOC then issued requests for information on every employee terminated for attendance-related infractions at each of ENA’s seven domestic facilities around the nation. ENA objected to the scope of those requests. The district court ordered ENA to turn over information related to the Northport, Alabama, facility but refused to enforce the subpoena as to information from other facilities. The EEOC appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion. In the alternative, the EEOC contends that, even if the charge were limited to the Northport facility, nationwide data is still relevant to its investigation.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order enforcing only part of the EEOC’s subpoena. The court explained the EEOC’s investigatory process is a multi-step process designed to notify employers of investigations into potentially unlawful employment practices. The court held that the EEOC charged only ENA’s Northport facility— which provided notice to ENA that the EEOC was investigating potentially unlawful employment practices only at that specific facility—and thus that the nationwide data sought by the EEOC is irrelevant to that charge. View "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Eberspaecher North America Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was let go from her position at Brandstar Studios shortly after her father fell ill. Following her termination, Plaintiff sued Brandstar under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted Brandstar summary judgment. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that Brandstar executives interfered with her rights under the FMLA. Second, she asserted that her termination constituted associational discrimination under the ADA. And finally, she claimed that the district court improperly weighed the evidence on summary judgment rather than construing the facts in her favor.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the parties agreed that Brandstar provided Plaintiff the leave she requested in her May 2 email and that she received full pay for those days. In fact, Plaintiff accidentally clocked in on her two days of requested leave, and Brandstar HR executives circled back weeks later to ensure that she corrected her timecard to reflect her requested leave. Thus, Plaintiff can’t demonstrate that she was harmed by Brandstar’s technical failure to notify her of her FMLA rights. Further, the court found that not only did Plaintiff fail to “request leave” in the May 6 email, but there’s also no indication that Brandstar “acquired knowledge” on its own that she wanted leave for an FMLA-qualifying reason. Moreover, the court found that the only evidence Plaintiff marshaled is the “temporal proximity” between her father’s acute onset decline and her termination—which isn’t enough to show pretext. View "Jessica Graves v. Brandstar Studios, Inc." on Justia Law

After being fired by his employer, Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Intervenor filed suit in federal district court, alleging that his termination reflected racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Anheuser-Busch filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration of Intervenor’s district court claims, asserting that at the time when he was hired, Intervenor had agreed to be bound by the company’s Dispute Resolution Policy. Intervenor disagreed that he was required to arbitrate his claims. After Anheuser-Busch asked the district court to compel arbitration, Intervenor filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, arguing that Defendant’s efforts to enforce its arbitration agreement contravened the collective bargaining agreement and constituted a unilateral change to the terms of Intervenor’s employment, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).   The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review of the Board’s order dismissing the complaint, vacated the decision of the Board, and remanded for consideration of whether enforcement of the Dispute Resolution Policy against Intervenor would violate the NLRA. The court held that the Board applied an erroneously narrow standard for determining whether Anheuser-Busch’s motion had an illegal objective. The court explained that on remand, the Board should instead determine whether the outcome sought by Anheuser-Busch’s motion— the compelled arbitration of Brown’s Title VII claims under the Dispute Resolution Policy—would violate the NLRA. If the Board decides that the answer to that question is “yes,” it should then order all relief that is appropriate based on Anheuser-Busch’s unlawful conduct. View "International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 947 v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged (1) Officer N. used excessive force when he tased Plaintiff at the scene of an automobile wreck, (2) Officer H. failed to intervene to prevent Officer N’s excessive force, and (3) the City of Madison, Alabama admitted the officers’ actions were the result of its municipal policy. Relying on body camera footage, Defendants Officer N., Officer H., and the City moved to dismiss. The district court granted their motions to dismiss. On appeal, Plaintiff argued the district court erred by (1) considering the officers’ body camera footage when ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss without converting them into summary judgment motions, (2) granting qualified immunity to Officer N., (3) dismissing Plaintiff’s failure-to-intervene claim against Officer H., and (4) dismissing his municipal liability claim against the City.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court properly considered the body camera footage, correctly ruled that Officer N. did not violate a constitutional right and thus Officer H. had no duty to intervene and accurately determined that Plaintiff’s claim against the City failed as a matter of law. The court explained Officer N.’s use of the taser was justified because of (1) Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with Officer N.’s commands, (2) Plaintiff’s unsafe driving that had just caused an automobile accident, (3) Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to get back in the vehicle, (4) Plaintiff’s physical resistance to Officer N.’s attempts to remove him from the vehicle, and (5) the tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving series of events. Thus, the court concluded that Officer N.’s single use of a taser in dart mode was objectively reasonable. View "Curtis Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama, et al." on Justia Law