Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against her employer, alleging that she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation and gender non-conformity, and retaliated against after she lodged a complaint with her employer's human resources department. The district court dismissed her pro se complaint. The court held that discrimination based on failure to conform to a gender stereotype was sex-based discrimination. In this case, a gender non-conformity claim was not "just another way to claim discrimination based on sexual orientation," but instead constituted a separate, distinct avenue for relief under Title VII. Therefore, the court vacated the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's gender non-conformity claim with prejudice and remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff leave to amend such claim. The court concluded that binding precedent, Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., foreclosed plaintiff's argument that she had stated a claim under Title VII by alleging that she endured workplace discrimination because of her sexual orientation. The Blum court held that discharge for homosexuality was not prohibited by Title VII. Therefore, the court affirmed the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's sexual orientation claim. Finally, the court considered any challenge to the district court's treatment of plaintiff's retaliation claim as waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which also served under the court's rules as a petition for rehearing before the panel. The court granted the petition for rehearing to the panel to the extent that the court vacated its previous opinion and substituted in its place this one. Petitioner, convicted of battery and sexual battery of a five-year-old in Florida, appealed the dismissal of his habeas petition. The court granted him a certificate of appealability on the the issue of whether the district court improperly determined that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition was time-barred, based on its finding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court held that an attorney's negligence, even gross negligence, or misunderstanding about the law is not by itself a serious instance of attorney misconduct for equitable tolling purposes, even though it does violate the ABA model rules as all, or virtually all, attorney negligence does. Because petitioner showed, at most, that his failure to meet the filing deadline was the product of his attorney’s good faith but negligent or grossly negligent misunderstanding of the law, the district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely. View "Cadet v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Georgia state prisoner, filed suit alleging that the grooming policy enforced in Georgia state prisons violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the GDOC substantially burdened his exercise of a sincerely held religious belief that Islam requires him to grow an uncut beard. The district court granted summary judgment for the GDOC. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's opinion in Holt v. Hobbs rendered the district court's analysis inadequate. The court vacated and remanded for further consideration because the district court never analyzed the substantial burden, compelling interest, or least restrictive means of plaintiff's case, and because the GDOC has revised its grooming policy since the district court rendered its decision. View "Smith v. Owens" on Justia Law

This case concerns certain provisions of Florida's Firearms Owners' Privacy Act (FOPA), Fla. Stat. 790.338, 456.072, 395.1055, & 381.026. The district court held that FOPA's record-keeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment provisions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. Exercising plenary review and applying heightened scrutiny as articulated in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., the court agreed with the district court that FOPA's content-based restrictions—the record-keeping, inquiry, and anti-harassment provisions—violate the First Amendment as it applies to the states. The court explained that, because these three provisions do not survive heightened scrutiny under Sorrell, the court need not address whether strict scrutiny should apply to them. The court concluded, however, that FOPA's anti-discrimination provision—as construed to apply to certain conduct by doctors and medical professionals—is not unconstitutional. Finally, the court concurred with the district court's assessment that the unconstitutional provisions of FOPA can be severed from the rest of the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded so that the judgment and permanent injunction can be amended in accordance with this opinion. View "Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida" on Justia Law

This case stems from a dispute between two doctors regarding the medical viability of a novel use for a particular drug. The Tobinick Appellants filed suit against the Novella Appellees, and Yale, challenging Dr. Novella's article criticizing Dr. Tobinick's novel treatments. The Tobinick Appellants then filed an amended complaint to add allegations relating to Dr. Novella's second article that was published just nine days prior. The court concluded that, because the Tobinick Appellants have not demonstrated a probability of success on the actual malice issue, the district court did not err in granting Dr. Novella's special motion to strike the state law claims pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(a); even though Dr. Novella had not yet filed his answer, the district court did not abuse its discretion in twice denying the Tobinick Appellants' motion for leave to amend the operative complaint because it properly sought to prevent an undue delay caused by the Tobinick Appellants' last-minute attempts to amend their complaint; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying each of the Tobinick Appellants' discovery-related requests for relief; and the court rejected the Tobinick Appellants' Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in all respects. View "Edward Lewis Tobinick, MD v. Novella" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force, assault, and battery. The district court granted law enforcement officers summary judgment based on qualified and official immunity. Officer Deaton threw a diversionary device, known as a “flashbang,” into a dark room occupied by plaintiff and her boyfriend, who were asleep, without first visually inspecting the room. The court concluded that Deaton used excessive force, but he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Constitution. The court also concluded that Deaton is entitled to official immunity because plaintiff failed to prove that Deaton intended to injure plaintiff. Finally, Deaton's supervisor is also entitled to qualified immunity from the complaint against his subordinate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dukes v. Deaton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed the complaints based on statute of limitations grounds. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) maintains a Driver and Vehicle Information Database (DAVID), which contains drivers' personal information. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants repeatedly accessed plaintiffs' private information through the DAVID database without their knowledge or consent. The court concluded that the statute of limitations began to run on plaintiffs' claims when the alleged DPPA violations occurred; plaintiffs have failed to present any theory that would entitle their claims to be treated as filed within the limitations period; and thus their actions are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Foudy v. Indian River County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Defendants, correctional officers who were members of the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT), were indicted and charged with various civil rights, conspiracy, and obstruction-of-justice violations stemming from alleged abuses of prisoners and subsequent cover-ups. Officers Rushin and Hall were found guilty of one count of Conspiracy to Obstruct and two counts of Obstruction of Justice. Defendant Lach was convicted of Deprivation of Rights, Conspiracy to Obstruct, and Obstruction of Justice. The court found no error on the part of the district judge. The court also concluded that the record reveals that defendants had adequate ability to make their arguments to the jury and that the minimal restrictions put in place regarding cross examination and admission of evidence were reasonable in light of the arguments made to the district judge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rushin" on Justia Law

This case arose from the Broward County (Florida) Sheriff’s potential liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for failing to rehire a former deputy allegedly due to his political loyalties and in violation of his First Amendment rights. Broward County has expressly designated its sheriff as its chief correctional officer (CCO); thus, at issue in this case was the basic question whether a Florida county sheriff, acting in his capacity as chief correctional officer in the hiring and firing of his deputies, was an arm of the state entitled to the benefit of the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. After careful review, and having the benefit of oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a Florida sheriff was not an arm of the state when acting in this capacity. The Court therefore reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Sheriff and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Stanley v. Broward County Sheriff" on Justia Law

Leokadia Bryk, a disabled nurse, sought a reasonable accommodation in the form of a job reassignment to another unit at St. Joseph’s Hospital because she required the use of a cane, which posed a safety hazard in the psychiatric ward where she worked. After Bryk did not obtain another Hospital position, the Hospital terminated her employment. The EEOC filed suit on her behalf against the Hospital. Based on the framework in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, the court affirmed the district court's finding that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., did not require job reassignment without competition as a reasonable accommodation. The court also agreed with the district court’s summary judgment rulings finding that Bryk was a “disabled qualified individual” under the ADA and that the Hospital’s 30-day allowance to apply for alternate jobs was reasonable as a matter of law. However, the court disagreed with the district court’s order granting in part the EEOC’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for alteration of the judgment. The court explained that, except in rare circumstances not present here, motions under Rule 59(e) may not be used to raise new legal theories or arguments, much less in this case where the movant under Rule 59(e), the EEOC, was seeking to contravene language in the jury instructions and verdict form that the EEOC had previously proposed. Therefore, the EEOC failed to meet the Rule 59(e) standard and the district court erred in altering the judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law