Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the creation in Westhampton Beach of an "eruv," a delineated geographic area significant to certain adherents of Judaism. The district court dismissed the complaint based on Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c) and plaintiffs appealed. The court rejected defendants' two jurisdictional challenges and concluded, on the merits, that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for a violation of the Establishment Clause against any of defendants. Two of the remaining three defendants are plainly not state actors and claims against these defendants must be dismissed for lack of state action. As to the remaining defendant, LIPA, plaintiffs have not plausibly pleaded that there was no secular purpose to the governmental action here. LIPA entered into a paid licensing agreement allowing the installation of items of religious significance on utility poles. Further, no reasonable observer who notices the strips on LIPA utility poles would draw the conclusion that a state actor is thereby endorsing religion, even assuming that a reasonable observer is aware that a state actor was the entity that contracted with a private party to lease the space. Finally, there is no risk of excessive government entanglement with religion. Accordingly, the court found no merit in plaintiffs' arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach v. Village of Westhampton Beach" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the county and the police commissioner, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Because defendants do not challenge them on appeal, the court did not revisit the district court's conclusions that plaintiff's media communications enjoyed First Amendment protection. The court expressed no opinion as to whether plaintiff would have been able to prevail on the basis of his indirect evidence of retaliatory intent; concluded that plaintiff has proffered sufficient direct evidence of retaliatory intent from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between his protected speech and the Department's adverse employment actions and, therefore, plaintiff has established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation; concluded that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on the Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle defense; and concluded that the record raises several genuine questions of material fact such that an award of summary judgment in defendants' favor is unjust. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment otherwise and remanded for further proceedings. View "Smith v. County of Suffolk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two officers and their employers, alleging that the officers knowingly falsified and omitted material facts from police reports, lied to the district attorney and the grand jury, and conspired to do the same, resulting in plaintiff's malicious prosecution. The district court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Buonora's motion to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court to the extent it denied Buonora absolute and qualified immunity from suit on certain of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims unrelated to his grand jury testimony. The third amended complaint alleges misconduct by Buonora that is not based on his grand jury testimony and the district court properly found that absolute immunity is inappropriate. In regards to qualified immunity, the alleged falsification of evidence and the related conspiracy, if true, constitute a violation of clearly established law, and no objectively reasonable public official could have thought otherwise. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Buonora's other claims of error at this interlocutory stage. Accordingly, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal. View "Coggins v. Buonora" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of New York State's requirement that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school. The statute provides two exemptions from the immunization mandate: a medical exemption and a religious exemption. Rejecting plaintiffs' substantive due process, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and Ninth Amendment challenges, the court concluded that the statute and regulation are a constitutionally permissible exercise of the State's police power and do not infringe on the free exercise of religion. The court further concluded that plaintiff's remaining arguments are either meritless or waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Phillips v. City of New York" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a defamation action against defendants based on statements that they made in an online petition and press release. The district court dismissed the action. The court reserved decision and certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: (1) Does a hyperlink to source material about judicial proceedings in an online petition suffice for purposes of applying the common law fair report privilege? and (2) Did Nevada’s anti-strategic litigation against public participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.653-41.670, as that statute was in effect prior to the most recent amendments in 2013, cover speech that seeks to influence an election but that is not addressed to a government agency? View "Adelson v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a longtime steelworker in Lackawanna, New York, endured racial insults, intimidation, and degradation over more than three years, including slurs, evocations of the Ku Klux Klan, statements comparing black men to apes, death threats, and placement of a noose dangling from the plaintiff’s automobile. Supervisorsʹ meager efforts failed to stop the escalating abuse. Managers often appeared to condone or participate in part in the harassment. A jury awarded $1.32 million in compensatory damages for hostile or abusive work environment because of his race and the state tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury also assessed $24 million in punitive damages, mostly against the employer and its parent company, subsequently reduced to $5 million. The court also awarded the plaintiff substantial attorney fees and costs. The Second Circuit affirmed, but remanded for further reduction of punitive damages, holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury as to employer liability, that the jury could find that the plaintiff’s direct employer and the parent company constituted a single employer, that the jury verdict as to intentional infliction of emotional distress was supported by the evidence, and that the compensatory damages award was proper. View "Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Hartford and Officers O'Hare and Pia for damages stemming from the officers' warrantless entry into plaintiffs' home where O'Hare shot and killed the family dog. Because the police officers lacked a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances to invade plaintiffs' curtilage, and because defendants cannot offer any other basis on which the officers' intrusion would be lawful, the court concluded that defendants violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights; defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for this violation because, under the undisputed facts, it would not have been objectively unreasonable for them to have believed that their conduct was lawful; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. O’Hare, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Golodner and STS filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and two officials, alleging retaliation against Golodner for exercising his rights under the First Amendment when he filed an earlier suit against the City and others. The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment where the complaint in the earlier suit constituted speech on a matter of public concern protected under the First Amendment and Golodner's right to engage in this form of speech was clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation. Golodner's speech was an attempt to vindicate his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in the face of alleged police misconduct directed against him as a private citizen. The court remanded for continued proceedings. View "Golodner v. Berliner, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the City, the police department, the police union, and five police supervisors, alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and other federal and state laws. On appeal, the supervisors challenged the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the employment discrimination claims. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Defendant Carlone on Plaintiff Raspardo's hostile work environment claim where Carlone's behavior was sufficient to permit a jury to find a hostile work environment, and where Carlone's conduct was clearly established as unlawful sexual harassment at the time of the events in question and that objectively reasonably officers would not disagree that Carlone's conduct constituted sexual harassment. The court concluded that the five individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Raspardo v. Carlone" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a botched SWAT-style raid that resulted in the fatal shooting of plaintiff's houseguest (Gonzalo Guizan) and injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff and Guizan's estate filed suit against law enforcement officers, alleging, inter alia, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state tort claims. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions for summary judgment based on their assertions of qualified immunity. The court reversed the judgment of the district court insofar as it determined that Chief Solomon was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the decision - standing alone - to activate the SWERT tactical team; affirmed the judgment of the district court insofar as it held that plaintiff's claims implicated clearly established constitutional law with respect to the planning and approval of the raid, the use of stun grenades, the actions of Officers Sweeney and Weir, the alleged knock-and-announce violations, and the duty of police to intervene in constitutional violations by fellow officers; and dismissed defendants' arguments in other respects because the appeal relied on disputed facts. The court remanded for further proceedings.View "Terebesi v. Torresso, et al." on Justia Law