Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Employer in this disability discrimination case brought by Plaintiff, a former employee, holding that the district court did not err in entering summary judgment against Plaintiff on her claims.Plaintiff was a military veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After she was discharged from her employment, Plaintiff sued Employer for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, and the Maine Human Rights Act, Me. Stat. tit. 5 4551-4634, alleging that she was wrongfully discharged based on her PTSD. Plaintiff also claimed that Employer unlawfully failed to accommodate her disability. The district court granted summary judgment for Employer. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Employer on Plaintiff's discriminatory discharge claim and failure to accommodate claim. View "Trahan v. Wayfair Maine LLC" on Justia Law

In this lawsuit brought against three Boston police officers who were involved in breaking up a party and arresting Plaintiffs, the First Circuit reversed the judgment for Plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for entering through the open door of a house under the community care taking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.Plaintiffs brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11H and 11I, as well as state tort claims for, among other things, false imprisonment. The jury reached a unanimous verdict in favor of Defendants on all counts. The district court, however, granted Plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, finding that the verdict was against the law as to the officers' warrantless entry into the home and that the warrantless entry on the facts as presented in the trial was not protected by qualified immunity. The court then amended its judgment so that it reflected a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to the section 1983 unlawful entry claim. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, under the community caretaking exception, their entry through the home's open door did not violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "Castagna v. Jean" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed this interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and remanded the matter to the district court, holding that Appellant's challenge to the district court's denial of summary judgment was not a final, appealable order.Plaintiff, an inmate at Souza Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC), brought this lawsuit alleging that Appellant, an SBCC prison official, and other SBCC officials failed to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of his constitutional rights. Appellant and the remaining defendants filed for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment to all SBCC officials except Appellant. Appellant filed a timely interlocutory appeal, alleging that the district court erred because the undisputed material facts showed Appellant was not deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant's challenge rested on factual, rather than legal, grounds, and therefore, this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "Norton v. Rodrigues" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the United States and the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (collectively, the Government) on Plaintiff's claims that the inclusion of the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the both of allegiance administered at United States naturalization ceremonies is unlawful and unconstitutional, holding that the district court correctly denied Plaintiff's claims.In her complaint, Plaintiff argued that the inclusion of "so help me God" as a means of completing the naturalization oath violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-2000bb-4 (RFRA). The district court granted summary judgment on all claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the phrase "so help me God" in the oath does not violate the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the RFRA, Equal Protection, or the Due Process Clause. View "Perrier-Bilbo v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for one count of conspiracy and one count of structuring the export of monetary transactions, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant's convictions arose from his role in assisting the leader of conspiracy in smuggling cash through the Logan International Airport in Boston and onto a plane headed to Portuguese islands in the Atlantic Ocean. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence against him; (2) the district court did not err by admitting into evidence certain statements that the leader made to undercover agents and to admit records of Defendant's phone contacts with the leader; (3) there was no merit to Defendant's argument that the district court erred by refusing to issue certain jury instructions that Defendant argued he requested; and (4) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "United States v. Melo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint alleging that Defendants knew that Mount Ida College was on the brink of insolvency but concealed this information, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed.Mount Ida, a higher education institution in Massachusetts, permanently closed after providing its students six weeks' notice that it was closing. Plaintiffs, current and prospective students, brought a putative class action against Mount Ida, its board of trustees, and five Mount Ida administrators (collectively, Defendants), alleging seven Massachusetts state law claims. The district court dismissed the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim failed; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs' violation of privacy claim; (3) no claims were stated for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or fraud in the inducement; (4) Plaintiffs' allegations did not plausibly allege a breach of implied contract; and (5) the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A claim. View "Squeri v. Mount Ida College" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the City of Somerville, Massachusetts and dismissing Plaintiff's claim that the City unlawfully forced him to retire as a police officer when it discovered that he had basically no vision in one eye, holding that Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Massachusetts discrimination law. In granting summary judgment to the City, the district court ruled in part that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff could perform high-speed pursuit driving, which the court concluded was an essential function of his job. The First Circuit vacated the summary judgment, holding that Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his monocular vision rendered him unqualified to perform the essential job functions of an incumbent officer in the City's police department. View "Melo v. City of Somerville" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that the special measure of constitutional protection to which police officers, in the motor vehicle context, performing community care taking functions are entitled extends to police officers performing community caretaking functions on private premises, including homes.Plaintiff's person and firearms were allegedly seized after Defendants, police officers, entered his home. Plaintiff brought several claims against Defendants, including claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and under state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's federal and state-law claims, concluding that the officers' conduct at Plaintiff's residence constituted a reasonable exercise of their caretaking responsibilities and thus did not violate Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants' actions did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities. View "Caniglia v. Strom" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of child pornography, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to suppress and for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).After agents executing a search warrant of Defendant's residence discovered digital files containing images and videos of child pornography on Defendant's computers Defendant filed a motion to suppress and, in the alternative, for a Franks hearing. The district court denied both motions. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of child pornography. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidence that the affidavit contained egregious misrepresentations sufficient to necessitate a Franks hearing to attack the warrant application, let alone to render the warrant invalid due to a misrepresentation; and (2) the warrant was adequately supported and the evidence obtained was admissible. View "United States v. Larson" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for one count of conspiracy to make false statements and to conceal in connection with healthcare benefit programs and two counts of false statements in connection with healthcare benefit programs, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress or in instructing the jury.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress data that the government had acquired pursuant to a warrant because even if the government's conduct violated the Fourth Amendment there was nothing in the record to show that any of the evidence introduce at trial should have been suppressed; and (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury about the inferences that it could draw from the fact that a particular witness was not called to testify. View "United States v. Aboshady" on Justia Law