News

Civil Rights

[02/03] Document shows NYPD eyed Shiites based on religion
[02/03] Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
[02/02] WA Senate approves bill to legalize gay marriage
[02/02] Illinois high court to rule in police torture case
[02/02] Ruling due on release of gay marriage trial videos
[02/01] Key Washington state gay marriage vote Wednesday
[01/31] Judge rules against cops in Occupy Oakland case
[01/30] Park Service says occupy camping must end in DC

More...

Employment Practices

[12/29]
[12/29]
[01/24] Job bias claims at record level
[01/11] Pepsi Beverages pays $3.1M in racial bias case
[01/11] Md. man's leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court
[01/11] Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute

More...

Top Headlines

[02/03] Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
[02/03] EU probes new Google privacy policy
[02/03] 'Boys Don't Cry' inmate appeals to Supreme Court
[02/02] Justice, House GOP tangle over access to documents
[02/02] Ruling due on release of gay marriage trial videos

More...

Case Summaries

Civil Procedure

[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] 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.

[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] Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners' Ass'n, Inc.
In a case in which judgment was entered in favor of a condominium association on a complaint for failure to perform its duties, against a plaintiff who subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the association is affirmed, where: 1) although the motion for fees was not timely filed, there was good cause for the delay, as it was understandable that the association was mistaken on the complex and debatable issue of whether the bankruptcy stay tolled the limitations period; and 2) although the trial court's articulated rationale for granting the fees was erroneous, its acceptance of the association's tolling argument was tantamount to a finding of good cause based on mistake.

[02/02] Eiskamp v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
In a suit against a water management agency for declaratory relief and a writ of mandate to challenge increased groundwater augmentation charges for the operators of wells in the agency's jurisdiction, the trial court's judgment in favor of the agency on demurrer is affirmed, where a stipulated agreement in other litigation resolved the plaintiff's issue in favor of the agency, so that the present action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

[02/01] Muto v. CBS Corp.
In a putative class action complaint brought in New York by Pennsylvania residents against the plaintiffs' former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under ERISA, the district court's dismissal of the complaint as time-barred is affirmed, where: 1) the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute directing it to look to Pennsylvania law for the applicable statute of limitations; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law.

[02/01] GECCMC 2005-C1 Plummer Street Office L.P. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
In a suit alleging breach of lease agreements that the defendant bank assumed after it purchased a failed bank's assets and liabilities from the FDIC pursuant to the terms of a written purchase and assumption agreement, the district court's grant of the bank's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where under federal common law, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit under the agreement because it was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

[01/31] Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc.
In a wrongful termination suit that the plaintiff lost and after which the defendant filed a memorandum of costs, the trial court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to tax those costs is affirmed, where the costs were properly calculated and awarded in all respects, and Code of Civil Procedure section 998(c) gives the trial court the discretion to award expert fees to the defendant, regardless of whose witness the expert is, if the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award after rejecting an offer to compromise.

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.

More...

Education

More...