Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[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] 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.

[09/03] 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.

[09/02] Goldhamer v. Nagode
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging violations of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and under state law, challenging a city ordinance's failure-to-disperse provision of section 8-4-010(d), district court's judgment permanently enjoining the city from enforcing the provision on the ground that it imposes too great a burden on protected free speech and is unconstitutionally vague is vacated and remanded as, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the facial validity of the ordinance at issue as they were not even arguably violating the failure-to-disperse provision when they were arrested for demonstrating against military recruitment, and plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable prospect of future arrest for again violating that same provision.

[09/02] Weber v.Universities Research Ass'n, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has waived her discrimination and retaliation arguments under the direct method of proof; and 2) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, because even if she does not have to show that she was meeting defendant's legitimate business expectations, defendant is still entitled to summary judgment as she has failed to show that there were similarly situated men who were treated more favorably than she was.

[09/02] Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.

[09/01] Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.

[09/01] Warf v. Bd of Elections of Green County
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming unconstitutional disenfranchisement against a county elections board and individuals, alleging that their voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by a Kentucky state trial court judgment that declared void all 542 votes cast by absentee ballot in the 2006 General Election for the office of Green County Clerk, grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as the Green Circuit Court's decision to void the absentee ballots does not rise to a level of fundamental unfairness in violation of Due Process as it is evident that the decision to void all absentee ballots cast in the election reasonably applied applicable Kentucky case law, and the court appropriately looked to analogous state cases and applied the careful scrutiny to incumbent clerks described therein.

[09/01] Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walsh
In a Catholic student group's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against University of Wisconsin for refusing to reimburse any of the group's expenses, district court's declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff in concluding that reimbursing the expenses of religious speakers, through a program equally available to secular speakers, does not violate the Establishment Clause, and that, having established a public forum, the University must not exclude speakers who want to use the forum for worship, is affirmed as underwriting a religious speaker's costs, as part of a neutral program justified by the program's secular benefits, does not violate the Establishment Clause even if the religious speaker uses some of the money for prayer or sectarian instruction.

[09/01] Gallagher v. Magner
In consolidated actions by several owners and former owners of rental properties in St. Paul, Minnesota, challenging the City of St. Paul's enforcement of its housing code, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiffs did not assert a claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework; 2) plaintiffs were not exercising a right under the Fair Housing Act by leasing to racial minorities; and 3) plaintiffs failed to reference a particular section of the St. Paul Code, let alone analyze why that section was vague. However, the order is reversed in part where the city's aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans.

Back to Main