Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves Sharnez Hager, a Black woman, who along with her family, was denied immediate seating at a Chili's restaurant in Rosenberg, Texas, operated by Brinker Texas, Inc. The hostess informed them of a 45-minute wait despite an unoccupied large table being available. Later, Hager's white fiancé arrived and was immediately offered the same table. Hager and her family were eventually seated but received no service, leading them to leave the restaurant. Hager filed a lawsuit against Brinker, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and Title II.The case was initially heard in a federal district court, where it was referred to a magistrate judge. Brinker moved for summary judgment, arguing that the delay in seating Hager's party was due to staff shortage, not racial discrimination. The magistrate judge recommended granting Brinker's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Hager failed to provide substantial evidence that Brinker's explanation was pretextual. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of Brinker.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that Hager had presented genuine disputes of material fact, including evidence of the hostess's apology for "discriminating against" her. The court also found that the magistrate judge erred in applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, a legal principle used to analyze claims of discrimination. The court concluded that the magistrate judge incorrectly classified the evidence, misapplied the burden-shifting framework, and improperly dismissed Hager's Title II claim based on her deposition testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Hager v. Brinker Texas" on Justia Law

DC Operating, a strip club in El Paso, Texas, and two of its employees, Nuvia Medina and Michelle Corral, challenged the constitutionality of S.B. 315, a Texas law that raised the minimum age of employment at sexually-oriented businesses from 18 to 21. The law was enacted to curb human trafficking. The plaintiffs argued that the law infringed on the employees' constitutional rights to expressive interest in nude dancing and occupational freedom. They also raised a claim of sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause for the first time on appeal.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas upheld the constitutionality of S.B. 315, following similar rulings in other cases. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that DC Operating lacked standing to bring the appeal because it did not assert any legal interests of its own, only those of its employees. The court noted that a plaintiff must assert its own legal rights and interests and cannot rest its claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. The court also found that the overbreadth claim brought by DC Operating did not alter the standing analysis because the plaintiff still needed to satisfy Article III requirements.Furthermore, the court found that the appeal was moot as to the two employees, Medina and Corral, because they had turned 21 and were no longer subject to the law they were challenging. The plaintiffs did not argue that the employees' claims remained justiciable or that an exception to mootness applied. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "DC Operating v. Paxton" on Justia Law

In this case, Austin Thompson Hughes, a former police officer and Uber driver, reported a drunk driver swerving across a highway in Houston. After the drunk driver crashed, Hughes, still on the phone with 911, performed a citizen's arrest in accordance with Texas law. However, when police officers arrived at the scene, they released the drunk driver and arrested Hughes, charging him with a felony for impersonating a peace officer. Hughes spent thousands of dollars defending against these charges before they were dropped by the City of Houston. Hughes then filed a § 1983 suit against the two officers who arrested him.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the officers moved to dismiss Hughes's complaint, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied the officers' motions, leading to an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, denying the officers' qualified immunity. The court found that Hughes had sufficiently pleaded that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting and prosecuting him without probable cause because they included material misstatements and omissions in their warrant affidavit and materials. The court also found that a corrected warrant affidavit could not have established probable cause to arrest and prosecute Hughes. The court concluded that no reasonable officer could have suspected Hughes committed a felony, given the inconsistencies in the drunk driver's statement, the driver's obvious intoxication, and the evidence supporting Hughes's account. View "Hughes v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, which expanded background checks for firearm purchases by individuals aged 18 to 20. The plaintiffs, Ethan McRorey, Kaylee Flores, Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Gun Owners Foundation, argued that the government failed to show a historical analogue for the Act's expanded background checks for this age group. They filed a lawsuit requesting a preliminary injunction after their attempts to purchase shotguns were delayed due to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) protocols.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that while adults aged 18 to 20 are protected by the Second Amendment, laws barring the mentally ill and felons from possessing firearms are constitutional, and restrictions to further those ends are presumptively lawful. Therefore, the plaintiffs lacked a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and were not entitled to preliminary relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that background checks preceding firearm sales are presumptively constitutional, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut that presumption. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the challenged regulations had been put towards abusive ends or had otherwise rebutted the presumption of lawfulness. The court concluded that a period of 10 days for background checks does not qualify as being put towards abusive ends or as a de facto prohibition on possession. View "McRorey v. Garland" on Justia Law

Rick Milteer, a disabled veteran and an observant African American Messianic Jewish believer, was employed by Navarro County, Texas, in its Texoma High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) division as an Information Technology (IT) manager. Milteer alleged that he faced discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. His claims were based on his supervisor's refusal to allow him to work remotely while recovering from surgery and during the Covid-19 pandemic, and his subsequent suspension and termination after he discovered a data breach and reported it.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Navarro County, dismissing all of Milteer's claims. The court found that Navarro County was Milteer's employer and that the County had provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Milteer's employment. The court also found that Milteer had failed to produce any evidence that he had informed the County of his disabilities or requested an accommodation from the County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the district court erred in treating Navarro County and the Texoma HIDTA as separate entities and in failing to impute the actions of Milteer's supervisor to the County. The court held that the Texoma HIDTA was not a legal entity capable of employing individuals, and that the actions and inactions of Milteer's supervisor could be imputed to the County. The court concluded that this error impacted the district court's analysis of Milteer's claims, necessitating a remand for further proceedings. View "Milteer v. Navarro County" on Justia Law

Nicholas Queen, a former federal prisoner, filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that prison officials physically assaulted him in January 2019. The incident occurred when four correctional officers woke Queen up in his cell due to a supposed medical emergency. The parties dispute the events that followed, with the government claiming that Queen assaulted the officers, while Queen alleges that the officers physically attacked him without provocation. Following the incident, Queen complained of various physical pains, which he associated with the assault. However, prison medical officials dismissed his complaints, suggesting over-the-counter pain medication would suffice. After his release from prison, Queen was diagnosed with chronic back and right hip pain, which a medical doctor confirmed was severe enough to prevent him from working.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The United States moved for the case to be dismissed at the summary judgment stage, arguing that Queen's injuries were de minimis and therefore insufficient to support an FTCA assault claim against a prison officer. The magistrate judge agreed with this argument and recommended dismissal. The district judge adopted this recommendation and dismissed Queen's case.Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court found that the district court had erred in its decision. The appellate court noted that the de minimis injury test applied to constitutional claims does not apply to an injury alleged under Louisiana tort law, which does not impose a de minimis injury bar to tort claims. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Queen v. United States" on Justia Law

The case involves Marcus Anderson and Reed Clark, current and former employees of Harris County, who allege that Constable Christopher Diaz violated their First Amendment rights. They claim that Diaz instituted reforms to ensure his re-election, which included requiring employees to work on his campaign and retaliating against those who impeded campaign functions. The plaintiffs assert that Diaz had final authority over employment decisions and that his actions resulted in various adverse employment actions, ranging from transfer to termination.The plaintiffs initiated a suit against Diaz and Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming Diaz violated their First Amendment rights. Harris County filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted, finding that Diaz was not a policymaker for Harris County. The district court dismissed all claims against the county with prejudice. Two years later, the district court issued a final judgment regarding the claims against Harris County, allowing the plaintiffs to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court agreed with the lower court's finding that Diaz, as a constable of a single precinct, was not a final policymaker for Harris County. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' alternative argument that Harris County was liable for Diaz's employment decisions under a delegation or rubber-stamp theory. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that the alleged First Amendment violations were the result of an official county policy, and therefore, their claims against Harris County were dismissed. View "Anderson v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Two members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, sued the City of San Antonio over its development plan for Brackenridge Park. They claimed that the plan, which involved tree removal and bird deterrence measures, would prevent them from performing religious ceremonies in the park, violating their rights under the First Amendment, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Texas Constitution. They sought an injunction requiring the city to grant them access to the park for worship, minimize tree removal, and allow cormorants to nest.The district court granted them access to the park for religious ceremonies but declined to enjoin the city's planned tree removal and bird deterrence measures. Both parties appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the city's development plan did not substantially burden the appellants' religious exercise. The court also found that the city's plan served two compelling interests: public health and safety, and compliance with federal law. The court concluded that the city's tree removal and bird deterrence plans were the least restrictive means to advance these interests. Therefore, the appellants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The court also denied the appellants' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. View "Perez v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

Eric Demond Lozano, a Texas state prisoner and Sunni Muslim, filed a lawsuit against three officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the Establishment Clause. Lozano claimed that his ability to practice his religion was substantially burdened due to the conditions in the prison. His claims included the inability to shower privately before Jumah, a weekly prayer service, due to non-Muslim inmates being allowed to shower at the same time; insufficient space to pray in his cell due to hostile cellmates; and lack of access to religious programming and instruction, specifically Taleem and Quranic studies, due to the absence of Muslim volunteers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the TDCJ officials. The court found that Lozano failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on whether the absence of a Muslim-designated unit or dorm violated the Establishment Clause. The court also concluded that Lozano provided no evidence to support his allegation that the faith-based dorms required inmates to study Christian materials.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment on Lozano's RLUIPA claims regarding Jumah showers and adequate prayer space. The appellate court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact on whether Lozano's ability to practice his religion was substantially burdened. The court also vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on Lozano's RLUIPA claim regarding additional religious programming and his Establishment Clause claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lozano v. Collier" on Justia Law

The estate and heirs of Dale O'Neal, a pre-trial detainee who was murdered by his cellmate in Clay County's jail, filed a lawsuit against several officers and the county under Section 1983. They alleged that the defendants failed to protect O'Neal, thereby violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case centered around the actions of the intake officer, Annie Avant, who assigned O'Neal's murderer, Cameron Henderson, to the same cell as O'Neal. The parties disputed what information was conveyed to Avant about Henderson's violent behavior and whether the booking system would have revealed that Henderson was previously determined to be a threat.The district court agreed with the magistrate judge's decision to exclude a late-designated expert and the accompanying report, which the plaintiffs relied on to establish the County's liability. The court then granted summary judgment to all defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs could not create a fact question as to whether the individual defendants acted with deliberate indifference. The court also found that Avant had qualified immunity.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiffs argued that it was an abuse of discretion to exclude the expert and error to grant summary judgment to Avant. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. It found no abuse of discretion in excluding the late-designated expert, considering factors such as the explanation for the failure to identify the witness, the importance of the testimony, potential prejudice in allowing the testimony, and the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Avant on the basis of qualified immunity, noting that the plaintiffs failed to point to any case supporting the proposition that the alleged constitutional violation was of clearly established law. View "Culberson v. Clay County" on Justia Law