Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a police detective used excessive force when arresting him for disorderly conduct. On appeal, the detective appealed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his official capacity claims where plaintiff was unable to introduce evidence adequate to support such claims; the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the question concerning whether the officers "could have just left the scene;" the district court did not commit plain error by allowing plaintiff to elicit testimony regarding alternative courses of action; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the use of excessive force by using a modified version of instruction 4.40 from the Eighth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions. View "Retz v. Seaton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and Arkansas state law, alleging various claims against her former employers. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on her claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action and that she received different treatment because of her sex; considering the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish that an incident related to a workplace disagreement permeated the workplace and thus had not established a prima facie case of hostile work environment; plaintiff failed to establish a case of constructive discharge where, inter alia, the record reflected that the employers sought to retain her as an employee; and plaintiff failed to establish a case of retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employers on plaintiff's claims. View "Rester v. Media, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Jackson County, Missouri and employees in its detention center. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his First Amendment claims. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the supervisor's removal of plaintiff from the trustee program in 2009 was motivated by the lawsuit he had filed against her in 2006; as to whether plaintiff would have been transferred from H module to D module but for his use of the grievance process; and as to whether two certain employees took adverse action against plaintiff by obstructing his access to the grievance process. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to defendants, remanding for further proceedings. View "Spencer v. Jackson County Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Metro, alleging that her supervisor had sexually harassed her in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Metro. The court concluded that the supervisor's alleged conduct was not so severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment and, therefore, affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff presented genuine issues of fact as to whether the supervisor was motivated by sex and whether he intentionally and proximately caused her termination. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this quid pro quo harassment claim. View "McMiller v. Metro" on Justia Law

Cab Drivers filed suit against the city challenging Ordinance section 76-73, which regulates the number of taxicab permits in the city. The city's stated purpose for the ordinance was insufficient demand for taxicabs. The court concluded that the ordinance was neither wholly arbitrary nor invidious. It is rationally related to a number of legitimate government purposes and Cab Drivers have failed to demonstrate that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the city. View "KC Taxi Cab Drivers, etc., et al. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri" on Justia Law

Several shareholder-derivative lawsuits were filed across the country, including one in Delaware state court and in federal district court, after an investigative report detailed an alleged bribery scheme involving Wal-Mart. In this appeal, at issue was whether a federal court could utilize Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States to stay a federal shareholder-derivative proceeding that contained a valid claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The district court stayed and administratively terminated the Federal proceedings in favor of a substantially similar state-court proceeding that would have the realistic effect of precluding any future proceedings in federal court. Accordingly, this order was final and appealable. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the Colorado River doctrine could not be used to stay or dismiss a federal proceeding in favor of a concurrent state proceeding when the federal proceeding contained a claim over which Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Here, the district court abused its discretion by using its inherent power to control its docket as an alternative justification for the stay, a stay which effectively dismissed the federal proceeding in favor of a concurrent state dispute. The proper standard to apply, given the effect of the stay, was Colorado River. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cottrell, et al. v. Duke, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Secretary of State, in his official capacity, and other state defendants. Plaintiff claimed race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied the state defendants' motion for summary judgment on the race discrimination and retaliation claims; concluded that plaintiff could pursue his Title VII claims against all defendants but that the Eleventh Amendment barred his section 1983 claims against the Secretary and his claims for monetary damages against the Secretary and Chief Hedden in their official capacities; denied Chief Hedden qualified immunity; and denied summary judgment to the state defendants as to mitigation of damages and punitive damages but granted summary judgment to the state defendants on the section 1981 claims, hostile work environment claims, and claim of deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects, except the court reversed its denial of qualified immunity to Chief Hedden on plaintiff's 1983 equal-protection retaliation claim. The right to be free from retaliation was clearly established as a First Amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation. View "Burton v. Arkansas Secretary of State, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her supervisor, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, alleging that the supervisor violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Plaintiff also alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and claims against the Department under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff's FMLA claims failed because she was not an eligible employee under the FLMA and she had been employed for less than 12 months; plaintiff's FLSA claim failed because she did not plead adequately that the supervisor violated the statute; because plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation, she failed to create a genuine issue for trial on a claim of discrimination under the ADA; and there was no genuine issue for trial on plaintiff's claim of unlawful retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FMLA and FLSA claims and the district court's grant of summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. View "Hill v. Walker" on Justia Law

Branden Mueller filed a complaint against BCI with the DOE alleging that BCI had terminated him after he complained about not being paid prevailing wages as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115. BCI subsequently petitioned for review of the Secretary's order reinstating Mueller with back pay. The court concluded that BCI was deprived of its due process rights because it was never afforded a hearing and because the post-deprivation procedures available under section 1553 of the ARRA did not provide an opportunity for BCI to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses. Therefore, the court granted the petition and vacated the order. View "Business Communications v. U.S. Dept. of Education, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from an IJ's order denying their motion to suppress evidence and terminate deportation proceedings. Petitioners argued that they alleged sufficient facts before the IJ to demonstrate that the entry and search of their home was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation such that the statements and passports they provided during the search should be suppressed. The court held that, even if petitioners have alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, they did not allege a prima facie case of egregiousness to warrant exclusion of evidence in the deportation context. Further, there was no Fifth Amendment violation for the failure to conduct a hearing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lopez-Fernandez, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law