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

Appellants appealed from the district court's dismissal of their claims under the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the Religions Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. Appellants challenged two statutory provisions, 31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) and 5114(b), which require that the country's motto, "In God We Trust," be placed on all coinage and paper currency. Joining its sister circuits, the court held that sections 5112(d)(1) and 5114(b) do not violate the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or RFRA because the statutes at issue have a secular purpose and neither advance nor inhibit religion and appellants have failed to identify a substantial burden upon their religious practices or beliefs. The court considered appellants' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Newdow v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, a medical center and four of its employees. Plaintiff alleged that had any of the defendants performed their duties properly, they would have realized that she was never a danger to herself or others and that she should never have been certified for forcible sedation or involuntary hospitalization. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiff failed to allege state action for the purpose of her 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and that she failed to allege actionable discrimination for the purpose of her Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, claim. View "McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, the NYPD, and four individual State and Federal law enforcement officials under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1988 and State law. Plaintiff claimed that a Federal agent presented false testimony to the State grand jury that returned the indictment against him. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's Bivens and section 1983 claims were foreclosed by Rehberg v. Paulk; plaintiff's allegation that his indictment was premised on faulty laboratory results failed to support a plausible fair trial claim; the district court correctly held that plaintiff failed to state a claim for abuse of process as to either the individual NYPD defendants or the agent; the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution; plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that defendants acted with discriminatory animus, as required to state a claim under sections 1981 or 1985; and the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim against the City and the NYPD for municipal liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. View "Morales v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that BOE is failing to provide them with meaningful access to its voting program, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794(a), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132. The district court concluded that pervasive and recurring barriers existed at poll sites operated by BOE and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The district court later ordered a remedial plan after the parties had the opportunity to develop and propose a joint plan of relief. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that BOE failed to grant voters with disabilities meaningful access to its voting program. The court also found that the district court's remedial order was a proper exercise of the district court's authority to grant equitable relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Disabled in Action, et al. v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's ex-wife, intoxicated and strung out, called the police and falsely accused plaintiff of assaulting her. Plaintiff was charged with assault and resisting arrest. After the charges were dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff filed suit against his ex-wife, the arresting officers, and the City, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that because arguable probable cause existed to arrest plaintiff, his claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution were properly dismissed; plaintiff's claim for denial of his right to a fair trial was properly dismissed because he failed to meet the required pleading standards; and plaintiff's claims against the ex-wife were properly dismissed because she did not act under the color of state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Betts v. Shearman, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against OCCC, alleging claims of discrimination on the basis of a "perceived disability" and retaliation in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The district court concluded that plaintiff, who was enrolled in OCCC's medical Laboratory Technology program, failed to establish that OCCC perceived his shaking hands to substantially limit a major life activity, and granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of OCCC as to the ADA discrimination claim. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of OCCC on the retaliation claim because plaintiff had not presented any evidence that OCCC's good faith belief that plaintiff had falsified documents was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the disciplinary referral. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that OCCC perceived him as having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity; plaintiff failed to demonstrate that OCCC's explanation for its decision to bring disciplinary proceedings against him was pretext for retaliation; and plaintiff's remaining arguments were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Widomski v. Orange County Community College" on Justia Law

The Board and School District appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing Reg. I.Q. Reg. I.Q. governs the "extended use" of school facilities outside of school hours by outside organizations and individuals. The district court found that enforcement of Reg. I.Q. to exclude religious worship services would violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The court concluded that the Free Exercise Clause did not entitle Bronx Household to a grant from the Board of a subsidized place to hold religious worship services; the Supreme Court's ruling in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah that invidiously discriminatory ordinances targeting a religious practice of a particular religion were subject to strict scrutiny had no application to Reg. I.Q.; if the Board has a reasonable, good faith concern that making its school facilities available for the conduct of religious worship services would give rise to a substantial risk of violating the Establishment Clause, the permissibly of the Board's refusal to do so did not turn on whether such use of school facilities would in fact violate the Establishment Clause; and therefore, Reg. I.Q. did not violate plaintiffs' rights to free exercise of religion, whether or not it was subject to strict scrutiny. The court also concluded that the district court erred in concluding that Reg. I.Q. violates the Establishment Clause because it compelled the Board to become excessively entangled with religion by deciding what were religious worship services. The court considered Bronx Household's other arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and vacated the injunction barring enforcement of Reg. I. Q. View "Bronx Household v. Board of Education" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed discrimination and retaliation claims against the Bank under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., as well as state and local laws. At issue was whether an employee's inability to sit for a prolonged time may constitute a disability under the ADA. The court held that impairments that limit the ability to sit for long periods of time do not categorically fail to qualify as disabilities under the ADA. The court vacated the district court's judgment relating to plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the ADA and leave for the district court to determine in the first instance on remand if the record reflected a genuine dispute of fact as to whether plaintiff's inability to sit for a prolonged period of time constituted a substantial limitation of a major life activity, and to address remaining arguments advanced by the Bank in its summary judgment motion. The court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., as well as her claim of retaliation under the ADA. The court vacated the district court's judgment with respect to plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the ADA and her claims under state law, remanding for further proceedings. View "Parada v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, among other things, that defendants violated their First Amendment and substantive due process rights by closing down Royal Crown's day care facility in retaliation for a letter of complaint that Royal Crown sent to a New York State senator. On appeal, the individually named defendants challenged from the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and from the denial of their motion to reconsider. The court concluded that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity solely because closing down Royal Crown may have been justified under the Health Code; defendants' motivation in closing down Royal Crown was material to Royal Crown's First Amendment and substantive due process claims and the court did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the dispute about defendants' motivation was genuine; properly assuming on this interlocutory appeal that defendants retaliated against Royal Crown for speech protected by the First Amendment, defendants' action was not objectively reasonable; Royal Crown's First Amendment and substantive due process rights to be free from retaliation and irrational government action in response to its letter to the Senator were clearly established at the time that defendants closed down plaintiff's day care facility; and therefore, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Royal Crown Day Care LLC v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene" on Justia Law

After plaintiff sought to obtain records from the SSA related to his father's disability status in order to support his efforts to obtain proceeds of his father's life insurance policy, plaintiff filed suit pro se alleging that the failure to provide the requested records violated the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The SSA eventually voluntarily provided the requested records to plaintiff. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his claim for damages and litigation fees under the Privacy Act and FOIA. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim for damages under the Privacy Act because the Act guarantees access only to an individual's own records and does not require federal agencies to provide information that pertains to a requesting individual, but is contained in another individual's records. However, because FOIA allows for fee shifting where, as here, a federal agency voluntarily complies with a requested disclosure following the filing of a FOIA lawsuit, the court vacated that portion of the district court's judgment denying plaintiff's request for $350 in litigation costs and remanded with instructions. View "Warren v. Colvin" on Justia Law