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

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

Sunrise filed suit alleging intentional discrimination, disparate impact discrimination, and failure to grant a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., after the commissioner determined that Sunrise's application for a special permit to establish a facility for individuals recovering for drug or alcohol addiction did not meet applicable zoning regulations. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute was not ripe. In this case, Sunrise failed to pursue a variance or to appeal the commissioner's determination, and therefore, failed to obtain a final decision on the permit application. The court concluded that Sunrise's remaining arguments were without merit. View "Sunrise Detox v. City of White Plains" 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

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they were falsely arrested for participating in a demonstration in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because the court could not resolve at this early stage the ultimately factual issue of whether certain defendants implicitly invited the demonstrators to walk onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, which would otherwise have been prohibited by New York law.View "Garcia v. Does" on Justia Law

This case concerns compliance reports regarding improving conditions in two correctional facilities under a settlement agreement between the United States and Erie County. The NYCLU sought to intervene in order to have the reports unsealed. The court held that the public's fundamental right of access to judicial documents, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was wrongly denied when the compliance reports in this case were sealed. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and ordered that the judicial documents be unsealed.View "United States v. Erie County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging section 181.21 of the New York City Health Code, which regulates metzitzah b'peh, the direct oral suction of the circumcision wound of an infant as a part of a bris milah. Plaintiffs argued that the Regulation compelled speech and burdened their free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The court agreed with the district court that the Regulation does not compel speech. However, the court concluded that the Regulation is neither neutral nor generally applicable and therefore must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Regulation is not neutral because it purposefully and exclusively targets a religious practice for special burdens and the Regulation is not generally applicable because it is underinclusive in relation to its asserted secular goals. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded for the district court to consider whether plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits applying strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.View "Central Rabbinical Congress v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene" on Justia Law

The New York State Legislature amended N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5206 in 2005, increasing the state's homestead exemption from $10,000 to $50,000. At issue was whether the 2005 Amendment's increased homestead exemption applied to judgment liens perfected prior to the amendment's effective date and, if so, whether application of the law to pre-enactment judgment liens violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that the 2005 Amendment applies to all creditors and all obligations, including pre-existing obligations, regardless of whether the debt was reduced to a judgment lien prior to the statute's enactment; and (2) that retroactive application of the exemption does not constitute an uncompensated taking of pre-enactment judgment liens in violation of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court's conclusion that there was been no taking of claimant's property.View "1256 Hertel Avenue Associates v. Calloway" on Justia Law

The County appealed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining it from foreclosing upon certain real property owned by the Cayuga Nation in order to recover uncollected ad valorem property taxes. The court affirmed the district court's injunction where the court declined, as has the Supreme Court, to read a "commercial activity" exception into the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity from suit. In the absence of a waiver of immunity by the tribe, unless Congress has authorized the suit, precedents demand that the court affirm the district court's injunction of the County's foreclosure proceedings against the Cayuga Nation's property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County, New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tenured culinary arts teacher, filed suit against the school board, alleging that the school board violated her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Connecticut General Statute 10-151 when it failed to provide notice and a hearing before reducing her full-time position to half-time. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of her claim, concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to notice or a hearing where the reduction in hours and salary did not constitute a "termination" under Connecticut law. View "Mirabilio v. Regional School District 16" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the display of "The Cross at Ground Zero," a column and cross-beam from one of the Twin Towers, at the National September 11 Museum as violating the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as parallel provisions of state law. The court concluded that displaying The Cross in the Museum does not violate the Establishment Clause because the stated purpose of displaying The Cross to tell the story of how some people used faith to cope with the tragedy is genuine, and an objective observer would understand the purpose of the display to be secular; an objective observer would not view the display as endorsing religion generally, or Christianity specifically, because it is part of an exhibit entitled "Finding Meaning at Ground Zero"; the exhibit includes various nonreligious as well as religious artifacts; and there is no evidence that the static display of this genuine historic artifact excessively entangles the government with religion. Because the Museum did not deny equal protection by displaying The Cross and refusing plaintiffs' request to fund an accompanying symbol commemorating atheists, the court affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment in favor of defendants.View "American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J." on Justia Law