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

Plaintiff appealed an order and judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Hofstra and dismissing her suit claiming harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2000e-17; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681-88; and corresponding provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), N.Y. Exec. Law 290-301. Plaintiff claimed that she experienced harassment and retaliation while employed by Hofstra as a team manager for the university's football program. Because defendants took the needed remedial action in this case, the harassment carried out by some players on the football team could not be imputed to the university or its personnel. The district court erred, however, in its analysis of the McDonnell Douglas factors by holding that plaintiff could not prevail on any of her three retaliation claims based on her supposed failure to demonstrate that she had engaged in protected activity and the requisite causation. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to withstand a grant of summary judgment with respect to her retaliation claims, but not as to her sexual harassment claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Summa v. Hofstra University" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others brought claims of hostile work environment based on gender under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e; 42 U.S.C. 1983; and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law 290 et seq. (NYSHRL), as well as claims of retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. The court concluded that plaintiff's claim of a hostile work environment involving allegations of repeated solicitation of sexual relations in a vulgar and humiliating manner sufficed to warrant a trial; plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination because of hostile work environment also sufficed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; but the district court properly determined that plaintiff's claims of retaliation failed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. In a summary order, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims of the other plaintiffs. View "Desardouin v. City of Rochester" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' commitments were effected by means of an executive-branch effort aimed at preventing the release of some "sexually violent predators." The court agreed with the district court that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support plaintiffs' procedural due process claims and therefore defeated the motion for summary judgment. The court also concluded that at the time of the Initiative, the constitutional principal that, absent some emergency or other exigent circumstance, an individual could not be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution without notice and a predeprivation hearing was firmly established. Because the law pertaining to the involuntary civil commitment of prisoners was firmly established, the district court properly determined that defendants should not enjoy qualified immunity. View "Bailey v. Pataki" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their action brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331 et seq., against UBS, alleging that plaintiffs were direct or indirect victims of terrorist attacks in Israel facilitated by UBS's furnishing of United States currency to Iran, which the U.S. Department of State had listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiffs contended principally that the FAC alleged a chain of causation between transfers of funds to Iran by UBS and plaintiffs' injuries at the hands of various terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, sufficient to establish traceability for purposes both of standing and of stating a claim under the ATA. The court concluded that the FAC was sufficient to show Article III standing but insufficient to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rothstein v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment denying injunctive relief from New York's statutory handgun licensing requirement. The district court concluded that the statute limited the grant of handgun licenses to domiciliaries of the state and plaintiff was a part-time New York resident who was not a domiciliary of the state. The court held that certification of the statute's interpretation to the New York Court of Appeals was warranted. View "Osterweil v. Bartlett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her employer, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that her job as a librarian at the Library was terminated because of behavior symptomatic of her chronic mental illness. Because the court concluded that Title II did, in some circumstances, require reasonable departures from standards established by state laws, the court vacated the district court's judgment of dismissal in that respect. Because the court concluded, based principally on the structure of the ADA, that Title II did not apply to employment discrimination, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal of that claim. View "Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement Sys." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former sergeant with the Hartford Police Department, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that defendants wrongfully failed to promote him and defendants instigated several internal affairs investigations into his conduct on the basis of his race or national origin. With respect to plaintiff's discrimination claims, the court held that he failed to introduce factual evidence that defendants' nondiscriminatory reasons for the investigation and failure to promote him were pretextual or that plaintiff's race or national origin was a motivating favor. With respect to Chief Croughwell, although the court agreed with plaintiff that his statement to the press implicated a matter of public concern, the court affirmed the judgment on the district court's alternative ground that Chief Croughwell was protected from liability by qualified immunity. View "Garcia v. Hartford Police Dept." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, two officers. The suit sought damages for the seizure of plaintiffs who were ordered to return to their automobile, a disorderly conduct arrest, and an alleged malicious prosecution, all claimed to have been precipitated by plaintiff's "giving the finger" to a police officer. The court held that there was a question of whether a motor vehicle stop occurred; there was a question of whether there was probable cause for the arrest for disorderly conduct; and it was error for the district court to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim based on dictum in Burg v. Gosselin. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment dismissing all three of plaintiffs' claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Swartz, et al v. Insogna, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. At issue was whether a court in Connecticut could properly exercise long-arm jurisdiction over a defendant who, while domiciled and working in Canada, was alleged to have accessed a computer server located in Connecticut to misappropriate confidential information belonging to her employer. The court held that Connecticut district court had long-arm jurisdiction over defendant; defendant had sufficient minimum contacts in Connecticut; and the exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with due process. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Enio Rivera and Michael Talton, employees of Lift Line, a subsidiary of RGRTA, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of RGRTA and a supervisor and dismissing plaintiffs' claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981, and New York state law. Considering the evidence, together with the evidence of a racially hostile work environment for Talton, his co-worker, in the light most favorable to Rivera, and resolving all ambiguities in his favor, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Rivera's hostile work environment claim. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Talton and accepting his version of the events as true, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing Talton's hostile work environment claims pursuant to Title VII and section 1981. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on Rivera's retaliation claims but vacated the grant of summary judgment on Talton's retaliation claim against RGRTA and vacated its grant of summary judgment dismissing Talton's retaliation claim against the supervisor under section 1981. The court also vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing Talton's state law claims. View "Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transp. Authority" on Justia Law