What's New

Case Summaries

Antitrust

More...

Civil Rights

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] Marcavage v. National Park Service
In an action by an abortion protester under 42 USC Section 1983 against the National Park Service, the United States Department of the Interior, and two Park Service rangers, alleging violations of the plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause based on his arrest, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is affirmed, where: 1) the rangers were entitled to qualified immunity from the First and Fourth Amendment claims; 2) the plaintiff's "class of one" theory of an equal protection violation failed because he was not in all relevant respects like the others who shared the sidewalk on which he was arrested; and 3) the plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were properly dismissed as moot because of a change in Park Service regulations.

[02/02] Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC
In a suit alleging that a roommate-matching service website’s questions requiring disclosure of sex, sexual orientation and familial status, and its sorting, steering and matching of users based on those characteristics, violate the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, permanent injunction, and order awarding attorney's fees is: 1) vacated in part where plaintiffs had organizational standing; and 2) dismissed in part where the FHA and FEHA do not apply to the sharing of living units because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raises substantial constitutional concerns, and therefore the defendant's prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection is not forbidden by the FHA or FEHA.

[02/01] McBurney v. Young
In a case brought by non-Virginia residents seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 USC section 1983 against Virginia officials because of their failure to provide the plaintiffs with requested public records on the basis that the plaintiffs were not Virginia residents, grant of summary judgment to the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) the plaintiffs' claim that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal constitution could not succeed as a matter of law; 2) the district court did not err in rejecting a dormant Commerce Clause claim.

[01/27] AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.

[01/26] Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper.

[01/26] Kenney v. Head
In a case under 42 USC section 1983 alleging that the events surrounding the plaintiff's arrest constituted a deprivation of his constitutional rights, the district court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed, where there was no error in the district court's evidentiary ruling excluding certain alleged statements offered to show the motive for the arrest.

[01/26] EEOC v. Great Steaks, Inc.
On a defendant's motion for attorney's fees after it had prevailed on a Title VII claim by the EEOC alleging sexual harassment of an employee, the district court's denial of the motion is affirmed, where the district court did not abuse its discretion in: 1) finding that the EEOC's case was not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, and thus denying fees under Title VII's fee-shifting provision; 2) declining to award attorney's fees under EAJA, as EAJA's mandatory fee provision did not apply, given the availability of fees under Title VII; and 3) denying the motion for attorneys' fees and costs under 28 USC section 1927.

[01/23] Ryburn v. Huff
In an action under 42 USC section 1983 alleging that police officers violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by entering their home without a warrant, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit disagreeing with the district court’s conclusion that petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed, where reasonable police officers could have come to the conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permitted them to enter the plaintiffs' residence if there was an objectively reasonable basis for fearing that violence was imminent, and a reasonable officer could have come to such a conclusion based on the facts as found by the district court.

[01/23] Lebron v. Rumsfeld
In a suit by a prisoner and his mother seeking a declaration that government defendants’ policies were unconstitutional, an order enjoining his future designation as an enemy combatant, and nominal damages of one dollar from each defendant, the district court's dismissal of the action is affirmed, where: 1) a Bivens action could not be maintained due to separation of powers concerns; 2) the defendants asserted a valid qualified immunity defense to the plaintiffs' claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 3) the district court did not err in concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an order enjoining the government from designating the prisoner as an enemy combatant in the future.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[02/03] Lawson v. FMR, LLC
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.

[02/03] Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
On appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied the plaintiff's claim for relief under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, the order is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Veterans Administration properly afforded the plaintiff the right to compete for the job and whether it properly determined that the plaintiff was not qualified for the position; and 2) the Board committed legal error by concluding that the administrative judge properly determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim and that the administrative judge's analysis was not erroneous.

[02/02] Gentry v. Siegel
In bankruptcy proceedings in which former employees of the debtor filed claims for unpaid overtime wages, the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 9014 motion and its refusal to allow the claimants to pursue class actions is affirmed, where: 1) the bankruptcy court was within its discretion to rule that the bankruptcy process would provide a process superior to the class action process for resolving the claims of former employees; 2) notice of the bankruptcy process to the named claimants was not constitutionally deficient; and 3) with respect to unnamed claimants, the named claimants lacked standing to challenge the notice.

[01/31] Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole
In an employee's suit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the district court's summary judgment in favor of the employee's supervisor is reversed, as: 1) the FMLA permits individual liability against supervisors at public agencies; and 2) the district court erred in holding that the supervisor was not an employer under the FMLA, where the record suggested that he exercised control over the conditions of the plaintiff's employment.

[01/31] Welch v. California State Teachers' Retirement Board
In an administrative mandamus proceeding brought by a former school teacher challenging the defendant’s denial of her application for disability retirement benefits, the trial court's denial of the writ petition is reversed and the case remanded, where: 1) misinformation received by the plaintiff from the defendant deprived her of a reasonable opportunity to develop contemporaneous evidence of her disability; 2) the defendant had the power under Education Code section 22308 to relieve the plaintiff from the consequences of her lack of proof because that lack of proof was attributable to the misinformation the defendant provided her.

[01/31] Neves v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation
On a petition for writ of mandate challenging the petitioner's firing from his job as a corrections officer, the trial court's issuance of the writ is reversed, where: 1) the petitioner presented no evidence that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified him of its decision to dismiss him more than 30 days after its decision to dismiss him was made; and 2) failed to demonstrate any violation of Government Code section 3304(f).

[01/30] Bernard v. City of Oakland
In a case in which retired firefighters or their surviving spouses contended that the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employee Medical Hospital Care Act, the trial court's denial of mandamus relief and dismissal of the actions are affirmed, where: 1) it was appropriate to defer to the health care plan administrator's interpretation of the statutory language in dispute; 2) there was no error in allowing a witness to testify as an expert, and even if there was error, it was harmless; and 3) there was no merit to an assertion that a contracting agency that elects to make increasing contributions under Government code section 22892(c) must also comply with the minimum contribution provisions of 22892(b).

[01/27] Minor v. Bostwick Laboratories, Inc.
In a suit alleging that an employee's termination was in retaliation for reporting alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations internally to her employer, the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is reversed, where: 1) intracompany complaints may constitute "fil[ing] any complaint" for purposes of the antiretaliation provision of FLSA; and 2) the plaintiff's allegations about how she presented her complaint to her employer met the standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.

[01/26] Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper.

More...