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

Angel Tudor, a teacher with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), worked for Whitehall Central School District for approximately 20 years. Tudor had an accommodation allowing her to leave campus for 15-minute breaks during her prep periods to manage her PTSD symptoms. In 2016, Whitehall prohibited teachers from leaving school grounds during prep periods, leading Tudor to take medical leave. Upon her return, Whitehall provided inconsistent accommodations, which Tudor claimed were insufficient. For the 2019-20 school year, Tudor's schedule included a study hall period during which she was not guaranteed her requested break, leading her to take unauthorized breaks.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Whitehall, holding that Tudor's ability to perform her job without accommodation was fatal to her failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court assumed Tudor had a qualifying disability but found that she could not establish the third element of her claim because she could perform her job's essential functions without accommodation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred. The appellate court held that an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without it. The court emphasized that the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, not just necessary ones. The judgment of the district court was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District" on Justia Law

Willie Dennis was convicted of three counts of cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) for sending repeated abusive electronic communications to his former partners at the law firm K&L Gates LLP after his ouster from the partnership. Dennis argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to his case because the trial evidence was insufficient to prove that his communications constituted "true threats" of physical harm, which would fall outside the First Amendment's protection of free speech. He also contended that erroneous jury instructions allowed the jury to find him guilty without proof of true threats and that he was unduly prejudiced by trial rulings and the trial judge's statements about his pro se status.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted Dennis on three counts of cyberstalking. Dennis appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove true threats and that the jury instructions were erroneous. He also claimed that he was prejudiced by the exclusion of certain evidence and by the trial judge's comments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find true threats in Dennis's communications to two of the victims, Bicks and Bostick, but insufficient as to the third victim, Cottle. The court held that Dennis's conviction on Count Two must be reversed due to insufficient evidence of true threats. The court also found that Dennis's failure to raise a true-threat challenge to the jury instructions in the district court limited appellate review to plain error, which was not evident. The court concluded that Dennis's other arguments were without merit.The Second Circuit affirmed Dennis's conviction on Counts One and Four but reversed the conviction on Count Two. View "United States v. Dennis" on Justia Law

Joshua G. Stegemann was convicted in 2015 for drug and firearm offenses. His Presentence Investigation Report identified him as a "career offender" based on prior Massachusetts convictions for trafficking and distributing cocaine. He was sentenced to 360 months in prison, and the judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. In 2018, Stegemann filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court allowed him to amend his petition five times before denying it in 2020. The Second Circuit granted a certificate of appealability, but Stegemann's arguments were ultimately rejected.Stegemann then filed a sixth motion to amend his § 2255 petition, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for not challenging his prior conviction under Massachusetts law as a "controlled substance offense" under the sentencing guidelines. The district court denied the motion, stating it was repetitive of arguments already rejected by the Second Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Stegemann's motion to amend was futile because it repeated an argument previously rejected by the Second Circuit. The court found no compelling reason to depart from the law of the case, as there was no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. View "Stegemann v. United States" on Justia Law

Omotayo, along with at least eleven co-conspirators, participated in an international scheme aimed at defrauding businesses in the United States. For his role in the fraud, Omotayo was convicted by a jury on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. He concedes that substantial evidence supported those convictions. The sole question before the court was whether Omotayo also violated a federal law criminalizing “aggravated identity theft,” 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, which carries a mandatory consecutive two-year prison term. At trial, the government showed that Omotayo possessed and sent a co-conspirator two versions of a single counterfeit invoice, both of which included the real name of another person. The jury was instructed that it could find Omotayo guilty of aggravated identity theft if the invoice had “a purpose, role, or effect with respect to the [wire fraud conspiracy].” It convicted Omotayo on that count. Omotayo appealed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Omotayo’s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the aggravated identity theft charge. The jury convicted Omotayo on all three counts, and the district court sentenced him to forty-eight months on Counts One and Two, and twenty-four months on Count Five, to be served consecutively. Omotayo timely appealed his conviction on Count Five, arguing that the government’s evidence was insufficient to establish that he used, transferred, or possessed Yulia Roytman’s name “during and in relation to” the wire fraud conspiracy, or that he acted “without lawful authority.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. Soon after Omotayo’s conviction, the Supreme Court decided Dubin v. United States, which established that Section 1028A applies only where a “defendant’s misuse of another person’s means of identification is at the crux of what makes the underlying offense criminal.” The court agreed with Omotayo that his conviction could not stand in light of Dubin. The jury was instructed to apply a legal standard that is now plainly incorrect. Even if the jury had been correctly instructed under Dubin, the government’s evidence was insufficient to show that Omotayo’s possession or transfer of the invoice played a key role in the wire fraud scheme. The court reversed Omotayo’s judgment of conviction as to the aggravated identity theft charge and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Omotayo" on Justia Law

Three former employees of Amazon filed a class action complaint seeking payment for straight-time and overtime wages under Connecticut’s wage laws for time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings after clocking out. The employees argued that this time should be compensable under state law. Amazon required employees to pass through security screenings when exiting the secured area of their fulfillment centers, but not upon entry. The screenings involved metal detectors and varied based on the personal belongings employees carried. Employees were not compensated for the time spent in these screenings.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon, dismissing the employees' complaint. The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, which held that time spent in mandatory security screenings is not compensable under federal law. The employees appealed the decision and moved to certify a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Connecticut’s wage laws to their case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the question of whether Connecticut’s wage laws require compensation for time spent in mandatory security screenings is unresolved. The court decided to certify this question to the Connecticut Supreme Court for a definitive resolution. Additionally, the court asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to address whether a de minimis exception applies to such compensable time and, if so, what amount of time is considered de minimis. The Second Circuit reserved its decision and dismissed the employees' motion to certify as moot, pending the Connecticut Supreme Court's response. View "Del Rio v. Amazon.com.DECE, LLC" on Justia Law

Nasir Cooper was convicted after pleading guilty to one count of possessing ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Cooper was sentenced to 57 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and a $100 mandatory special assessment. Cooper appealed, arguing that the district court erred in classifying his prior conviction for second-degree attempted assault under New York Penal Law § 120.05(7) as a crime of violence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Cooper's prior conviction for second-degree attempted assault was a crime of violence, which resulted in a base offense level of 24 under the Sentencing Guidelines. Cooper objected, arguing that the conviction should not be considered a crime of violence, which would have resulted in a lower base offense level of 20. The district court rejected Cooper's argument and sentenced him based on the higher offense level.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Cooper had waived any argument that his conviction was not under N.Y.P.L. § 120.05(7) by acknowledging it in his sentencing submissions. The court also held that a conviction for second-degree attempted assault under N.Y.P.L. § 120.05(7) categorically constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). The court reasoned that the statute requires the use of physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury, meeting the criteria for a crime of violence under the Guidelines. Consequently, the appellate court found no procedural error in the district court's determination of Cooper's base offense level and affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

On October 24, 2016, Syracuse Police Department officers entered Troy Alexander's home without a warrant after receiving a report of a sexual assault. They searched the home for 12.5 hours before obtaining a warrant, during which they also towed Alexander's cars. After obtaining the warrant, they found narcotics in Alexander's bedroom. Alexander was arrested and faced multiple charges, including burglary, narcotics, and sexual assault. He posted bail twice but was not immediately released. Eventually, all charges were dropped.Alexander filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights and state law by the City of Syracuse, County of Onondaga, and Detective Rory Gilhooley. He claimed the warrantless entry and prolonged seizure of his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights, that he was falsely arrested, maliciously prosecuted, and improperly detained after posting bail. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Alexander's claims regarding the warrantless entry, search, and seizure of his home, as well as his false arrest and malicious prosecution claims related to the burglary charges, presented triable issues of fact. The court also found gaps in the evidentiary record regarding Alexander's state law claims of continued detention after posting bail, precluding summary judgment for the City and County on these claims. The court vacated and remanded the judgment on these claims but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "Alexander v. City of Syracuse" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Grubhub Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its state analogues by entering into no-price competition clauses (NPCCs) with restaurants, which prevented the restaurants from offering lower prices through other channels. The plaintiffs claimed that these NPCCs led to artificially high prices for restaurant meals. The class included customers who purchased takeout or delivery directly from restaurants subject to NPCCs, customers who dined in at such restaurants, and customers who used non-defendant platforms to purchase from these restaurants.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the scope of the arbitration clauses was an issue for the court to decide and that the clauses did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims as they lacked a nexus to the defendants' Terms of Use. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not agreed to Grubhub's Terms of Use.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, ruling that the question of arbitrability for the plaintiffs' claims against Grubhub is for the court to decide and that Grubhub's arbitration clause does not apply to the plaintiffs' antitrust claims. However, the court reversed the district court's decision in part, finding that Grubhub had established an agreement to arbitrate with the plaintiffs and that the threshold question for the plaintiffs' claims against Uber and Postmates is for the arbitrator to decide. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Davitashvili v. Grubhub" on Justia Law

Anna Gristina, the plaintiff-appellant, sought to unseal transcripts related to her 2012 New York State criminal conviction for promoting prostitution. Nearly ten years after her guilty plea, she filed motions before Justice Juan Merchan, requesting the unsealing of several transcripts. After her motion was partially denied and while the decision was under review by higher state courts, Gristina filed a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Justice Merchan and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to unseal three specific transcripts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Gristina's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the Younger abstention doctrine. The district court concluded that it was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction because the state court order denying the unsealing of transcripts was a pending matter in New York State court involving a judicial function. Alternatively, the district court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibited it from reviewing the state court order as it was a final state court judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine. The court found that the state court's order denying the unsealing of transcripts, which was still under review by higher state courts at the time Gristina filed her federal suit, was a pending civil proceeding uniquely in furtherance of the state court's ability to perform its judicial functions. Therefore, Younger abstention was required, and the district court's dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Gristina v. Merchan" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Vermont Superior Court transitioned to electronic filing and adopted a policy that delayed public access to newly filed civil complaints until a court clerk reviewed them for compliance with technical requirements and the absence of unredacted confidential information. Plaintiffs, consisting of news and media organizations, challenged this practice, claiming it violated their First Amendment right of access to court documents.The United States District Court for the District of Vermont held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The court found that Vermont’s pre-access review process violated the First Amendment and issued a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from withholding complaints until the completion of the review process. The Defendants, administrators and clerks of the Vermont Superior Court, appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that Vermont’s practice, as reviewed, violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. However, the appellate court found that the terms of the permanent injunction were not supported by the court’s findings. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment to the extent it found the practice violated the First Amendment but vacated the permanent injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the terms of an appropriate injunction. The court also addressed and rejected the Defendants' arguments regarding abstention and mootness. View "Courthouse News Service v. Corsones" on Justia Law