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

The EEOC filed suit against Sterling under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging that Sterling engaged in a nationwide practice of sex‐ based pay and promotion discrimination. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding after conducting discovery and found that the EEOC failed to prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre‐suit investigation and recommended summary judgment on that basis. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment to Sterling. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC investigation rather than whether there was an investigation. Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation. Because the EEOC conducted an investigation in this case, the court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings. View "EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc." on Justia Law

BBVA, a Spanish bank, appealed from the district court's orders directing BBVA, a third-party defendant, to comply with an information subpoena issued in connection with plaintiff Aldo Vera, Jr.’s attempt to enforce a $49 million default judgment against the Republic of Cuba. The second order denies reconsideration of the first order. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied staying the motion as moot because the appealed decisions are not final orders under 28 U.S.C. 1291. View "Vera v. Republic of Cuba" on Justia Law

The government appealed the district court's grant of defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained after the stop and search of their vehicle on an interstate highway. The district court determined that the police officer who conducted the stop lacked reasonable suspicion to conclude that a traffic violation had occurred under the relevant state law.  The court concluded, however, that the officerʹs observation of several of defendantsʹ vehicleʹs wheels twice touching or crossing the solid painted line separating the right lane of the highway from the shoulder gave rise to reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MTA, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112-12117. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to MTA and its dismissal of plaintiff's claims. The district court, based on Collins v. New York City Transit Authority, gave almost preclusive weight to the NYSDHR's dismissal of this claim. The court vacated and remanded the dismissal of the disability discrimination claim because Collins addresses only the effect of arbitration awards under a collective bargaining agreement and does not apply to the decisions of state administrative agencies. The NYSDHR’s findings are admissible evidence, and the court held only that consideration of them on a motion for summary judgment, or, if appropriate, at a trial, is not governed by Collins. The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim. View "Cortes v. MTA New York City Transit" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims stemming from his confinement in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, and then the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, for an extended period of time, allegedly without procedural protections, and in retaliation for protected speech. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to file his complaint within the three‐year statute of limitations applicable to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics claims. In this case, plaintiff's claim as he has pled it, assuming it otherwise is viable, accrued only after the defendants had confined him in the SHU for some threshold period of time. Therefore, the court concluded that the continuing violation doctrine does apply to plaintiffʹs Eighth Amendment claim, but that it does not apply to his First or Fifth Amendment claims. Further, certain aspects of his Fifth Amendment claim may be timely. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part. vacated in part, and remanded in part for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Hasty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a high school math teacher, filed suit against the District, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two principals. Plaintiff alleged that defendants discriminated against him because of his Hispanic ethnicity and that they retaliated against him after he complained of discrimination. The district court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held, however, that certain of plaintiff's claims were not time-barred, as the district court had concluded; retaliation claims are actionable under section 1983; a Title VII plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss; and, in this case, plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owner of Fiscal Agency Agreement (FAA) bonds that were not restructured, filed suit against BCRA seeking to recover their unpaid principal and interest. The district court held that the FAA's express waiver of sovereign immunity, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(1), also waived BCRA's immunity because BCRA is Argentina’s “alter ego.” The district court further held that BCRA’s use of its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) constituted “commercial activity” in the United States, which waived BCRA’s sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2). The court concluded that it has jurisdiction over the appeal under the collateral-order doctrine; Argentina’s sovereign‐immunity waiver in the FAA may not be imputed to also waive BCRA’s independent sovereign immunity; and BCRA’s use of its FRBNY account is too incidental to the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claim to serve as the basis for waiving BCRA’s sovereign immunity under the commercial‐activity exception to the FSIA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "EM Ltd. v. Banco Central de la Republica Argentina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against several corrections officers and supervisors at a New York corrections facility, alleging that, while he was incarcerated, he endured a cruel campaign of harassment at the hands of corrections officers in retaliation for his refusal to provide false information against another inmate. The district court subsequently granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the grant of summary judgment conflicts with Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it reached, sua sponte without notice, claims not briefed in defendants’ motion. The court reiterated the proper standard for granting summary judgment on grounds not raised by the movant, which was not met here; the court clarified the standard for a claim for unconstitutional retaliation; the court disagreed with the district court’s analysis of plaintiff’s claim for unsanitary conditions; the court revived plaintiff's claims for nutritionally inadequate meals, theft of legal documents, harassment, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment; and the court suggested to the district court that on remand plaintiff receive appointed counsel, an opportunity to take further discovery, and leave to file a second amended complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Willey v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of 28 retail pharmacies, filed suit against defendants, primarily pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging claims for money damages and injunctive relief under subsections 2(a), 2(d), and 2(f) of the Robinson‐Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.13(a), 13(d), 13(f), and sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, 26. Plaintiffs’ main contentions are that the lower prices offered by manufacturers violate the Robinson‐Patman Act by harming their ability to compete, and that favored purchasers violated the Act by using their drug formularies to extract the lower prices. Plaintiffs sought to prove that discounts caused them to lose customers to the favored purchasers, and that as a consequence they suffered injury under the antitrust laws. The district court concluded that plaintiffs could prove neither type of injury and granted defendants summary judgment. The court concluded that, given that an extended discovery process resulted in almost no evidence of diverted sales or other indicia of potential competitive injury, summary judgment was appropriate on the section 2(a) claims; plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to competitive injury and antitrust injury; injunctive relief is inappropriate where plaintiffs have offered no argument that future conditions will change in such a way as to make the injuries they claim to have suffered more pronounced than currently alleged; and since plaintiffs failed to show competitive or antitrust injury with regard to their section 2(a) claim, summary judgment is appropriate with respect to their claims under sections 2(d) and 2(f) as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cash & Henderson Drugs v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting: carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119; and the brandishing of a firearm during a crime of violence, i.e., the carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The court held that defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting a violation of section 924(c) was supported by his admission that he knew that a firearm was being used during the carjacking and thereafter aided and abetted the carjacking. Further, the court held that the district court did not err in failing to depart downwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines because of defendant's confinement in decrepit and unsafe conditions of confinement at the Nassau County Correctional Center. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law