No abuse of discretion in fees and costs award, given the quality and manner of representation and securing expert witnesses. Court appropriately reduced lodestar calculation based on unnecessary filings, despite claim that the early fees award motions were justified, since simultaneous remediations of the property might have left the plaintiff as the non-prevailing party.
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label ADA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ADA. Show all posts
Fifth Circuit: Sligh v. City of Conroe
Police dog's directed attack was a violation of pedestrian's constitutional rights, but not a clearly established violation of constitutional rights for liability purposes, since precedent cited was of a non-resisting suspect. Similarly, claims against bystander officers and the municipality were not against clearly established law. Police knowledge that pedestrian was a mental patient insufficient for a claim under the disability act.
Eighth Circuit: Barry Segal v. Metropolitan Council
Although a violation of the transit agency's regulations might not suffice to establish a claim under the discrimination statute, the violations here presented a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Eighth Circuit: Scott Gustafson v. Bi-State Development Agency
Concession at the motion for judgment on the pleadings that the plaintiff wasn't seeking to enforce a private right of action under the statute judicially estops plaintiff from making such a claim at the motion for summary judgment.
Frustrating but isolated incidents of inability to access services don't support a discrimination claim under the statute.
Earlier denial of motion to amend the complaint isn't automatically raised in an appeal of subsequent denial of summary judgment.
DC Circuit: USA v. Nizar Trabelsi
Pretrial orders denying a double jeopardy claim arising from the circumstances of extradition are sufficiently final for the purposes of appeal.
By the terms of the treaty and the act of state doctrine, the courts should primarily defer to the actions of the foreign executive rather than the actions of the foreign judiciary.
Foreign court's determination of the limits of the foreign executive's power under the order did not interpret the executive's decision or say that he was compelled to follow the instructions of the order.
Foreign executive's transmission of letter outlining terms of the extradition was not an act of state where the transmission of the letter was mandated by the foreign judiciary, and the letter notes that it is not necessarily the position of the foreign state.
CONCURRENCE:
A private right arising from a treaty can be forfeited when not timely raised.
CONCURRENCE:
Although the plain text of the treaty imposes no double jeopardy obligations on the extraditing state, an earlier holding in the case established that it imposed reciprocal obligations as to its principles; making this determination should have been the first consideration, as it implicates US separation of powers, with the courts constrained from reading general principles of international law into the terms of a treaty.
First Circuit: Cushing v. Packard
For claims arising from either of the federal statutes at issue, a suit against an officer of a state legislature in their official capacity, and in which the state is not named in the action, is against the legislator personally in their legislative capacity and doesn't implicate state sovereign immunity.
If Congress can abrogate conduct-based legislative immunity, as opposed to status-based sovereign immunity, a clear statement to that effect in the law is required.
State legislature did not waive its officers' legislative immunity from disability related discrimination claims by accepting federal funds for the legislative session costs pursuant to a federal statute with an antidiscrimination clause.
Legislative immunity bars a suit against a state officer where the injunctive remedy would effect a change in the rules that was more than merely casually or incidentally related to legislative affairs.
Legislative immunity under the Speech and Debate clause can't be limited by the state's adoption of a less expansive standard in its own law.
Extraordinary exceptions to legislative immunity aren't available, since, among other reasons, the legislature was following independent procedural rules, rather than changing them.
DISSENT:
Purpose of the immunity is to prevent the disenfranchisement of the people. Effective ouster and disenfranchisement of some can't therefore be immunized in the interests of protecting others. Only immunizing conduct that isn't facially discriminatory opens the door to facially neutral but discriminatory rulemaking.
Second Circuit: Tardif v. City of New York
Not providing timely and adequate medical services to detained individual prior to arraignment doesn't violate the disability act, since the disability requiring medication is the reason for the service, not the obstacle for which a reasonable accomodation would have to be provided. Plaintiff was not denied medical services because of the disability.
At summary judgment, the defendant was not required to provide a nondiscriminatory theory for not providing the medication.
Limiting the testimony rebutting a claim of pecuniary motivation to the social justice motivations for participating in the protest rather than allowing testimony about past work for social justice was not an abuse of discretion.
State law permits a police officer to use an objectively reasonable amount of justifiable force in any non-arrest situation; the contact does not in itself give rise to a claim for assault, and the justification is not limited to the circumstances enumerated in state law.
Since the question of objective reasonableness of force looks to the Fourth Amendment, it was error to instruct the jury that the subjective mental state was at issue; where subjective mental state was potentially dispositive, the error is not harmless.
Seventh Circuit: Todd Kurtzhals v. County of Dunn
Loss of reasonably expected overtime pay is sufficiently materially adverse to present an issue for trial on an ADA claim by an employee placed on paid leave.
Insufficient evidence of pretext to present an issue for trial where the employee's action facially violated workplace rules, but the employee claims that the supervisor's knowledge of employee's PTSD was a but-for cause of the adverse action.
Subsequent fitness for duty evaluation was not proscribed by statute or inconsistent with business necessity, given responsibilities of police officers.
Seventh Circuit: Angela Tonyan v. Dunham's Athleisure
Given empirical practice and the business model of the company, the employer's two documented lists of essential qualifications for the job suffice to deny the ADA claim. Even if the employee were to delegate those tasks, it would amount is substantial enough that it would amount to a delegation of the job itself.
Fourth Circuit: Douglas Fauconier v. Harold Clarke
Prisoner ADA complaint appropriately equitably tolled during exhaustion of administrative remedies required by federal statute.
Prison officials' reliance on a medical classification in the stated denial of all prospects of work states a claim under the ADA.
Prisoner pro se complaint asserting unequal treatment of comparators and lack of administrative explanation for informal denying the chance to work based on a medical classification states an Equal Protection claim.
Eleventh Amendment bars Equal Protection action for damages against prison administrators, but not the ADA action for damages, as an actual violation of the 14th amendment is alleged.
Claims against individuals barred under Qualified Immunity, since a clearly established right would be plain to every reasonable official, and such is not the case here.
Inmate transfer moots all claims for equitable relief except those against Director of agency.
Seventh Circuit: Janet Kotaska v. Federal Express Corporation
Where an essential qualification for employment specifies a range of weight up to a certain amount, a showing of the genuine issue for trial on the maximum amount does not mean that there isn't a genuine issue of fact about whether the plaintiff's capabilities in the range beneath the maximum amount were insufficient.
A showing of capable engagement in the task for three weeks is insufficient to establish that all essential qualifications were met.
Where an employer unknowingly rehires after a year, the initial termination is sufficient nondiscriminatory reason for a second termination.
Dissent: ADA plaintiffs shouldn't have the burden of production for the essential qualifications for the task. Circuit split flagged. Summary judgment inappropriate where plaintiff has dispelled initial defense theory. Second termination letter actually discussed protected conduct.
Seventh Circuit: Scott McCray v. Robert Wilkie
Claim originating in assignment of offices not pellucid enough, will be developed on remand.
Conduct potentially violating Title VII raised in employer's motion to dismiss insulated employer from Title VII claim when plaintiff didn't make the argument in the reply brief.
Seventh Circuit: Rae McCann v. Badger Mining Corporation
Claim of factual error insufficient for finding of pretextual justification of employment decision where facts do not indicate that employer had knowledge of the facts.
Employer's agreement to transfer request does not raise material fact regarding veracity of employer's reservations.
Given breadth of workforce reduction insufficient showing of suspicious timing.
Emails evincing employer's knowledge of disability insufficient to establish animus.
Ninth Circuit: Nunies v. HIE Holdings
Under the discrimination statute, the minor nature of an actual or perceived injury is an affirmative defense, and the burden to establish this subjective belief or actual condition is on the employer.
Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.
State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf
Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.
State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf
First Circuit: Richard v. Regional School Unit 57
Establishment that the employer's nondiscriminatory justification was in fact pretextual does not establish causation, which must be proved separately.
Sufficient evidence for court's inferences.
Dissent: From totality of record, retaliation was plain.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2200P-01A.pdf
Sufficient evidence for court's inferences.
Dissent: From totality of record, retaliation was plain.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2200P-01A.pdf
Third Circuit: Traci Berardelli v. Allied Services Institute
Where the standards of liability of two statutes are substantively identical, administrative regulations enacted for one are due deference in interpreting the other.
Requested accommodation was reasonable as a matter of law -- jury instruction giving plaintiffs the burden to establish reasonability was error.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171469p.pdf
Requested accommodation was reasonable as a matter of law -- jury instruction giving plaintiffs the burden to establish reasonability was error.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171469p.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Clark v. Colbert
Firing of non-lethal rounds at a contained, psychotic fellow with a knife who refused to submit to arrest was not an unconstitutionally excessive use of force.
Appeal of state tort claim waived as only one of three independent grounds for denial was addressed.
Appeal of municipal liability under ADA waived for insufficient development of grounds for appeal.
Jail nurse's refusal to allow follow-up appointment with doctor, resulting in an improperly knit bone healing, did not rise to the level of conscious disregard of an excessive risk to health or safety.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-7046.pdf
Appeal of state tort claim waived as only one of three independent grounds for denial was addressed.
Appeal of municipal liability under ADA waived for insufficient development of grounds for appeal.
Jail nurse's refusal to allow follow-up appointment with doctor, resulting in an improperly knit bone healing, did not rise to the level of conscious disregard of an excessive risk to health or safety.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-7046.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Heidi Hostettler v. College of Wooster
There is an issue for trial when a plaintiff claiming disability or gender discrimination claims that she can perform all required work within a shorter amount of time; absent a showing to the contrary, the task is not necessarily defined by the number of hours required.
Employer can be estopped from claiming that the amount of leave taken exceeds that protected by the Act when the employee relies to her detriment on an assertion to the contrary, presenting an issue for trial.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0140p-06.pdf
Employer can be estopped from claiming that the amount of leave taken exceeds that protected by the Act when the employee relies to her detriment on an assertion to the contrary, presenting an issue for trial.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0140p-06.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Carrie-Anne Smith v. Rockwood R-VI School District
Discrimination claims that in substance allege the denial of a free and appropriate public education trigger the exhaustion requirements of the Act; even if one party is thought not to have standing, the development of the administrative record will assist any subsequent judicial review.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172260P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172260P.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara
A sufficiently expansive state law of survivorship and intestate succession can bar an adopted natural child from asserting a S1983 claim, as there is no absolute right of succession implied by the purposes of the act.
Claims under the ADA and the RA are remedial in nature, not punitive; the statute-borrowing provisions of civil rights law are therefore inapplicable; there is no precedent under federal common law for allowing an adopted natural child to state a claim.
Absent a showing of a true parental relationship, an adopted natural child with a close relationship cannot state a claim under a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest.
Court properly denied leave to amend, given relevant state statute of limitations, as nature of present claim doesn't hold the door open for relation-back.
Concurrence: Adopted children can establish a 14A claim.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/03/16-17375.pdf
Claims under the ADA and the RA are remedial in nature, not punitive; the statute-borrowing provisions of civil rights law are therefore inapplicable; there is no precedent under federal common law for allowing an adopted natural child to state a claim.
Absent a showing of a true parental relationship, an adopted natural child with a close relationship cannot state a claim under a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest.
Court properly denied leave to amend, given relevant state statute of limitations, as nature of present claim doesn't hold the door open for relation-back.
Concurrence: Adopted children can establish a 14A claim.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/03/16-17375.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)