Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

During routine examinations, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) raised an issue with Frontier State Bank Oklahoma City's use of a "leverage strategy" whereby the bank funded long-term investments with short-term borrowing in order to generate profits from the "spread" between long-term and short-term interest rates. The FDIC's enforcement staff obtained a cease-and-desist order from the FDIC Board which required the Bank mitigate the risks associated with its leverage strategy. Frontier appealed the Board's mitigation order to the Tenth Circuit. The FDIC argued that the Court lacked authority to review the order's leverage capital requirements, and defended the order as a reasonable exercise of the FDIC Board's authority. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Board's order was not arbitrary or capricious, and denied its petition for review. View "Frontier State Bank Oklahoma v. FDIC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Willie Barlow, Jr., appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, C.R. England, Inc., on his claims for race discrimination, wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy, and failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). England employed Plaintiff as a security guard and also paid him to perform janitorial work through a company Plaintiff formed. Plaintiff began receiving workers’ compensation benefits after he sustained an injury at work in June 2007. In November, England terminated its janitorial services contract with Plaintiff's company. A few months later, England fired Plaintiff from his security guard position after he failed to notice and report a theft of several trailer doors from England’s premises. The district court concluded that: (1) there was no evidence England fired Plaintiff for race-based reasons, or in retaliation for his workers’ compensation claim; (2) Plaintiff performed his janitorial work as an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus could not assert a claim for wrongful discharge from that position; and (3) Plaintiff's status as an independent contractor precluded an FLSA claim for overtime. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed with regard to Plaintiff's claims for discrimination and violation of the FLSA. The Court reversed, however, Plaintiff's state-law claim for wrongful discharge. View "Barlow, Jr. v. C.R. England Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this interlocutory appeal was the scope of the special relationship doctrine and whether it would apply to the facts alleged to expose two human services employees to potential individual liability for the death of a seven-year-old child in foster care. After their son Chandler died while in the care of Jon Phillips and Sarah Berry, Chandler's biological parents, Christina Grafner and Joshua Norris, and Melissa R. Schwartz, personal representative and administrator of Chandler’s estate, filed suit against two county human services departments and two employees alleging, among other things, a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for violation of Chandler's substantive due process rights. The two employees, Defendants-Appellants Margaret Booker and Mary Peagler, appealed denial of their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs sufficiently pled facts, when taken as true, showed Booker and Peagler plausibly violated Chandler's substantive due process right to be reasonably safe while in foster care, which right was clearly established at the time. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court. View "Schwartz, et al v. Booker, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd., as subrogees of Boart Longyear, Inc., sued Defendants Thyssen Mining Construction of Canada Ltd. and Mudjatik Thyssen Mining Joint Venture (MTM) in New Mexico for negligence relating to the collapse of a mine that MTM was excavating in Canada. The district court dismissed MTM for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the entire case under the forum non conveniens doctrine. The Plaintiffs appealed. Finding that Plaintiffs' arguments "stretch[ed] the agency theory too far," the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of MTM for lack of personal jurisdiction, but reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint under forum non conveniens. "The district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims was premature because [a] Canadian court has not yet ruled on Defendants' statute of limitations defense. Until this ruling occurs, the availability of the Canadian court as an adequate alternative forum is unclear and dismissal of the case in New Mexico risks depriving the Plaintiffs of any forum." View "Fireman's Fund, et al v. Thyssen Mining Construction, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Bruce M. Jones, II appealed a district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He sought to suppress all evidence that Kansas law enforcement obtained from searches of his residence and vehicle pursuant to search warrants issued by a Kansas state court, including multiple marijuana plants. Defendant contended that officers of the Missouri State Highway Patrol violated his Fourth Amendment rights when the officers: (1) engaged him in an accusatory conversation outside of his residence in Kansas City, Kansas; (2) later took his driver's license; and (3) then entered his residence without a warrant or consent. Defendant argued that the information that the Missouri officers obtained from their Fourth Amendment violations provided the essential foundation for the Kansas search warrants issued for his residence and vehicle. Without this tainted information, Defendant argued that the warrants lacked probable cause to support the searches. After thorough review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit rejected all of Defendant's contentions on appeal and affirmed the order denying suppression of the evidence. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant Sturgeon Stewart appealed a district court's judgment in favor of defendants on his claims under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Appellant was an inmate in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) and confined at the El Dorado Correctional Facility (El Dorado). In accordance with his Rastafarian religious beliefs, he does not cut or comb his hair, which he keeps in dreadlocks. In December 2006, Stewart learned that his mother had been diagnosed with cancer. To be closer to her, Stewart requested a voluntary transfer to the Lansing Correctional Facility (Lansing). His request was granted. On the day of the transfer, one of the defendants, Officer Agnes Beach, refused to allow Stewart to board the transport vehicle because he could not comb out his dreadlocks, as was required by the KDOC policy then in effect. Beach consulted with her supervisor who gave Appellant a choice: either cut his hair or forego the transfer. Appellant told defendants of his religious beliefs; in lieu of cutting his hair, Appellant offered that the officers pat down his hair and use a metal detector to search for contraband. Wilson cancelled the transfer and sent Appellant to administrative segregation. Appellant filed multiple unsuccessful grievances. Appellant eventually cut his hair and was transferred to Lansing the next day. In 2008, acting pro se, Appellant filed this action asserting that defendants essentially forced him to choose between adhering to his religious beliefs and transferring closer to his ailing mother, and that this violated his rights under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA. Claims against defendants were dismissed. Upon review of the applicable legal authority implied by this case, the Tenth Circuit largely agreed with the district court's decision and affirmed. View "Stewart v. Beach" on Justia Law

The government appealed a district court order granting Defendant-Appellee Manuel Santistevan's motion to suppress statements made after invoking the right to counsel. Defendant was indicted on three counts of interference with commerce by robbery, using and carrying a dangerous weapon during the commission of a violent crime, possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The district court held that Defendant unambiguously invoked the right to counsel when he gave an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") a letter from his attorney indicating that he did not wish to speak without counsel. Because the agent continued to interrogate Defendant, the district court suppressed the incriminating statements that Defendant subsequently made. Upon review of the record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant indeed unambiguously invoked the right to counsel when he gave the letter drafted by his attorney to the agent, and affirmed the district court in suppressing the statements. View "United States v. Santistevan" on Justia Law

Defendant Skoshi Farr was convicted by a jury of violating 26 U.S.C. 7201 for willfully failing to pay a trust fund recovery penalty that the Internal Revenue Service assessed against her after she, as the manager of an alternative medical clinic, failed to pay quarterly employment taxes owed by the clinic. Defendant appealed her conviction, contending she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by the district court's rulings which permitted the admission of certain Rule 404(b) evidence. She also contended the district court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, which argued that the government's evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, and in denying her motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to charge the offense under the appropriate statute. Finally, Defendant contended her prosecution in this case was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause as a result of the government's prior unsuccessful prosecution. Upon review of the case and the applicable statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Defendant's arguments lacked merit, and affirmed her conviction. View "United States v. Farr" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, eight operators and a supervisor at the City of Albuquerque's 311 Citizen Contact Center (CCC), appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees City of Albuquerque, Ed Adams, and Esther Tenenbaum, on claims arising from their termination. The City's Merit System governed Plaintiffs' employment; section 3-1-6 of the Merit System Ordinance (MSO) divides employees into classified and unclassified service, and defines unclassified employees as "employees at will." When the City created the 311 CCC, it designated all positions as unclassified. Upon joining the 311 CCC, each Plaintiff signed a form that listed their Employment or Position Status as "Unclassified." Between 2005 and 2009, Plaintiffs were terminated from the 311 CCC. Some Plaintiffs were subject to Progressive Disciplinary Action, while others faced Immediate Termination. In April 2009, Plaintiffs filed suit in New Mexico state court for (1) breach of employment contract, (2) denial of due process and equal protection, (3) wrongful termination, (4) violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and (5) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In a lengthy opinion, the district court found that summary judgment was appropriate because Plaintiffs, as unclassified employees, were employed at will, and (1) had no protected property interest in continued employment; (2) had not raised a genuine issue of material fact whether they had an implied employment contract; and (3) had not raised a genuine issue of material fact whether they were terminated in violation of a clear mandate of public policy. With respect to the FMLA claim, the court found that whether treated as a claim for retaliation or interference, Plaintiffs had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the City's reason for termination was pretextual or that the City had interfered with Plaintiffs' right to FMLA leave. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the district court's grant of summary judgment was improper because the court weighed the evidence and failed to construe the facts in Plaintiffs' favor when determining that they were at will employees and thus rightly terminated. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs' arguments lacked merit and affirmed the district court decision. View "Gonzales v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Gayen Hancock, David Cross, Montez Mutzig, and James Bollinger sought to represent a class of customers dissatisfied with "U-verse," a digital telecommunications service offered by Defendants AT&T and several of its subsidiaries. The Oklahoma federal district court dismissed their claims based on forum selection and arbitration clauses in the U-verse terms of service. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims. Finding no error in the district court's interpretation of the terms of service, and finding no abuse of the court's discretion, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. View "Hancock v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc." on Justia Law