Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After plaintiff was denied tenure as an assistant professor of Legal Studies at the University of Mississippi, he filed suit against several university officials in their individual capacities, alleging that they violated his substantive due process rights when they evaluated his eligibility for tenure in an arbitrary and capricious manner. A jury subsequently awarded plaintiff over $200,000 in damages for lost wages and past and future pain and suffering.The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the district court erred when it denied defendants' motions for qualified immunity and concluded that plaintiff had a clearly established property interest. In this case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the language in his contract that allegedly guaranteed him a "fair process of tenure review" gave rise to a clearly-established property right. View "Wigginton v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant on plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs resulting from an alleged psychological crisis when defendant failed to take any measures to address plaintiff's risk of suicide.The court held that plaintiff failed to establish a triable material issue of fact showing either that defendant's actions, which led to a three-hour delay in medical treatment, manifested deliberate indifference or that defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. In this case, the record does not support an inference that while in defendant's custody plaintiff faced a substantial risk of suicide. Furthermore, defendant's conduct did not amount to inaction in response to plaintiff's outcry for psychological assistance. View "Baldwin v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs, African-American voters and the Terrebonne Parish NAACP, filed suit to challenge the electoral method for Louisiana's 32nd Judicial District Court (JDC), alleging that at-large elections for the judges produce discriminatory results, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and have been maintained for a discriminatory purpose in violation of that statute and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The district court upheld both claims and ordered a remedial plan breaking the 32nd JDC into five single-member electoral subdistricts.The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court clearly erred in its finding of minority vote dilution in the election of judges for Terrebonne Parish's 32nd JDC. The court held that the district court erred in holding that weak evidence of vote dilution could overcome the state's substantial interest in linking judicial positions to the judges' parish-wide jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court erroneously equated failed legislative attempts to create subdistricts for the 32nd JDC with a racially discriminatory intent. View "Fusilier v. Landry" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the school district in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination and retaliation.Regardless of whether the "transitory and minor" nature of the impairment was part of plaintiff's prima facie case or an affirmative defense to her claim of "regarded as" disability discrimination, the court held that the school district is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's "regarded as" disability-based discrimination claim. In this case, there are no facts in dispute regarding the transitory and minor nature of the perceived impairment from plaintiff's lap band surgery. Although the court held that the district court erred in its determination that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because she failed to present sufficient evidence of a causal connection, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district on the retaliation claim because plaintiff failed to meet her summary judgment burden of pointing to evidence demonstrating that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons proffered by the school district for its actions were pretextual. The school district proffered that plaintiff was removed from coaching basketball because it was the school district's understanding that she did not like coaching basketball and did not want to do so. View "Lyons v. Katy Independent School District" on Justia Law

The en banc court unanimously agrees that this court no longer has jurisdiction in this case because it has become moot. The en banc court explained that it is undisputed that the 2019 general election has occurred, and the current district lines will neither be used nor operate as a base for any future election. Therefore, the en banc court vacated the district court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Thomas v. Reeves" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a Louisiana church and its pastor, filed suit seeking to enjoin stay-at-home orders restricting in-person church services to ten congregants.The Fifth Circuit held that the appeal of the denial of injunctive relief and related request for an injunction under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) are moot because the challenged orders expired more than a month ago. In this case, plaintiffs failed to cite any authority applying the "capable of repetition" exception to support an injunction against an order that is no longer in effect. View "Spell v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, family members of Chad Ernest Lee Silvis, filed suit against police officers for deliberate indifference after Silvis committed suicide in a jail cell by hanging himself with a blanket that one of the officers gave him.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims based on qualified immunity, holding that the complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief. In this case, plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they were subjectively aware that Silvis was at a significant risk of suicide and responded unreasonably to that risk by failing to remove the blanket from Silvis's cell, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. View "Converse v. City of Kemah" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment entered on plaintiff's claims against her employer, the City of Houston, for discrimination and creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The court held that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the fourth element of her discrimination claim. In this case, plaintiff failed to show that she was similarly situated to other employees who were not members of her protected class and who were treated more favorably. The court held that plaintiff's proffered evidence regarding holdover overtime failed to show that her station-level supervisors treated her less favorably than her white, male comparators. In regard to ride-up overtime, the court held that plaintiff's allegations failed because neither of her coworkers held the same job or responsibilities or shared the same supervisor as her. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her hostile work environment claim because she failed to show that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that her colleagues' actions were severe, physically threatening, or humiliating. View "Jordan v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

During the Coronavirus pandemic, Texas Governor Abbott postponed the May 2020 primary runoff elections to July 14; doubled the period for early voting by personal appearance; and declared that election officials would issue further guidance on social distancing and other precautions. The Democratic Party sought injunctive and declaratory relief that those eligible to vote by mail include all “eligible voter[s], regardless of age and physical condition . . . if they believe they should practice social distancing in order to hinder the known or unknown spread of a virus or disease.” The state trial court granted a preliminary injunction; an interlocutory appeal stayed the injunction. Texas Attorney General Paxton issued a statement, indicating that fear of contracting the Virus unaccompanied by a qualifying sickness or physical condition does not constitute a disability under the Texas Election Code for purposes of receiving a ballot by mail.The plaintiffs filed federal claims that Texas’s rules for voting by mail discriminate by age, restrict political speech, are unconstitutionally vague, and that Paxton’s open letter was a threat constituting voter intimidation. The Fifth Circuit denied relief, referring to the district court’s “audacity” in entering a sweeping preliminary injunction, weeks before the election, that requires officials to distribute mail-in ballots to any eligible voter who wants one. The Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to politically accountable state officials The spread of the Virus has not given unelected federal judges a roving commission to rewrite state election code. View "Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against UTSMC, seeking recovery for UTSMC's alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of UTSMC's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss because UTSMC is an arm of the State of Texas and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court applied the Clark factors and held that UTSMC is entitled to arm-of-the-state status where statutes and legal authorities favor treating UTSMC as an arm of Texas; Texas law authorizes state treasury funds to be allocated to UTSMC from the permanent health fund for higher education and a judgment against UTSMC would interfere with Texas's fiscal autonomy; UTSMC does not operate with a level of local autonomy to consider it independent from Texas; because of UT System's statewide presence, components of the UT System shall not be confined to specific geographical areas; and the UT System has the power of eminent domain, and the land it acquires becomes property of the state. View "Daniel v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center" on Justia Law