Civil Rights Case Summaries
[09/08] Adrian v. Yorktown
In an action alleging that defendant-town, through its town supervisor and other policy-making officials, maintained an official policy under which the plaintiffs were denied the right to develop their property, and subsequently retaliated against for their exercise of their First Amendment rights, a district court's order denying post-verdict interest is vacated where, if a mandate reinstating a jury verdict does not order entry of a judgment in a specific dollar amount, and also makes no mention of interest, the district court retains the power to award post-verdict interest on remand.
[09/08] Rhodes v. Robinson
In an action alleging that prison guards violated plaintiff's civil rights by retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment right to pursue the prison grievance process against them, a dismissal of the complaint is reversed in part where the new claims in plaintiff's second amended complaint (SAC) should not have been dismissed, because they were properly exhausted before he tendered his SAC to the district court for filing.
[09/08] Alvarado-Santos v. Dep't of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer, claiming national origin and gender discrimination under Title VII, jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff is reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because, based on the evidence presented at trial, no reasonable jury could find that the nonrenewal of plaintiff's contract was based on her gender and/or national origin.
[09/08] Grider v. Auburn
In an action by plaintiffs who owned a bar/restaurant in Auburn, Alabama, against City of Auburn and City employees under state tort law and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming that the City and its agents filed false bribery charges and selectively enforced regulatory laws in order to harm plaintiffs' business, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where, absent the offering of funds, there was no bribery and no arguable probable cause for defendant-officer to arrest plaintiff. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiffs lacked evidence that the city defendants conspired with the officer to maliciously prosecute plaintiff.
[09/07] Wilson v. Rees
District court's dismissal, as untimely, of an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit challenging Kentucky's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is affirmed as Bowling v. Ky. Dept. of Corrections, 301 S.W.3d 478, (Ky. 2009), and its aftermath do not disrupt the district court's holding that defendant's complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.
[09/07] Payne v. Salazar
In an action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, dismissal of the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is affirmed in part where the district court properly held that plaintiff failed to exhaust one of her claims. However, the order is reversed in part where an employee's right to trial de novo -- whether her employer is the federal government or a private company -- means that she is entitled to a plenary trial of whatever claims she brings to court, and it does not mean that she must sue on claims she has no interest in pursuing.
[09/07] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Kronos Inc.
In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) suit seeking enforcement of a third-party administrative subpoena it issued against defendant pertaining to the EEOC's investigation into a charge of discrimination against a grocery store, district court's order narrowing the scope of the subpoena and directing the parties to negotiate a confidentiality order is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment is reversed insofar as it limited the scope of the EEOC's subpoena in terms of geography, time and job description; 2) to the extent that the district court's order limits the EEOC's access to validation efforts conducted solely on behalf of the store, documents relating to potential adverse impact on disabled individuals to those relating specifically and only to the store, and user's manuals and instructions for the assessment were actually provided to the store, the order is reversed; 3) district court's judgment is affirmed to the extent that it declines to enforce the portion of the EEOC's subpoena requesting information related to potential discrimination based on race; and 4) district court's confidentiality order is vacated and remanded to permit the district court to conduct a good cause balancing test.
[09/07] Kahn v. Dep't of Justice
In a DEA agent's suit under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), the Merit Systems Protection Board's final decision that plaintiff did not make protected disclosures under the WPA is affirmed where: 1) the administrative judge did not err in finding that plaintiff's communications with an agent were not protected disclosures because they were made as part of normal duties through normal channels; 2) plaintiff's report was not a disclosure because he did not reveal something that was hidden and not known to the DEA; and 3) because plaintiff's communications were not protected under the WPA, the question of whether the government could have shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have transferred plaintiff on the absence of his communications need not be addressed.
[09/07] Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer for disability and age discrimination, a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disability and age discrimination; and 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the motivation for his termination was discriminatory in response to defendant's proffer of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment.
[09/07] Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger
In a class action against California officials with responsibility over the corrections system and parole proceedings, seeking accommodations to plaintiffs' disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution, the district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to require defendants to track and accommodate the needs of class members housed in county jails and to ensure a workable grievance procedure for such class members is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants were responsible for providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled prisoners and parolees they housed in county jails; and 2) the district court made the findings required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) regarding the necessity for relief and the narrowness and lack of intrusiveness of the relief order. However, the order is vacated in part where injunctions, whether controlled by the PLRA or otherwise, required evidence of rights violations commensurate with the scope of the relief being ordered.
[09/03] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc.
In a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.
[09/03] Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.
[09/03] Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.
[09/03] Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
[09/02] Carlson v. Bukovic
In plaintiff's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against an officer for excessive force and the city for failure to train the officer, district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) mere physical contact by an officer, although significant factor, does not automatically qualify an encounter as a Fourth Amendment seizure; 2) district court correctly submitted the question of whether a seizure took place to the jury; 3) the jury was entitled to determine that, at the time the officer touched plaintiff's arm, officer's action was more exhortatory than commanding; 4) because plaintiff's section 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim failed, her failure-to-train claim against the city fails as well; and 5) plaintiff's claim that the district judge was biased need not be addressed as recusal was unnecessary in this case.
