Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, who is blind, filed suit against the County, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. Plaintiff was employed by the County when the County opened a new call center using software that was inaccessible to blind employees. The County did not transfer plaintiff to the new call center along with her sighted coworkers and the County also did not hire her for a vacant position there. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on the Section 504 claim, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether plaintiff could perform the essential job functions of a call center employee; whether the County reasonably accommodated her; and if the County did not, whether its failure to do so may be excused because of undue hardship. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on the Title II claim where public employees cannot use Title II to bring employment discrimination claims against their employers. View "Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty, MD" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, police officers for the Town of Mocksville, filed suit alleging that the Town and others violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights when plaintiffs were terminated for speaking out about corruption and misconduct at the Mocksville Police Department. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that plaintiffs acted as private citizens on a matter of undisputed public concern by privately reaching out to the Governor's Office about suspected corruption and misconduct. Such actions cannot be considered as part of plaintiffs' daily professional activities. Further, it was clearly established law at the time that speech about serious misconduct in a law enforcement agency is protected. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to Defendants Cook and Bralley. View "Hunter v. Mocksville, NC" on Justia Law

In 1970, the district court determined that the City and the Board were operating racially segregated schools and directed them to submit desegregation plans that would establish a nonracial, unitary school district. This appeal stemmed from the district court's two desegregation orders. Plaintiffs moved to enjoin the implementation of the Board's 2011-2012 student assignment plan because it failed to move the school district toward unitary status. The district court denied relief. The court vacated the district court's ruling, holding that the district court erred when it failed to place the burden on the Board to show that the 2011-12 student assignment plan moved the school district toward unitary status. Subsequently, the district court granted the Board's motion requesting that the district court declare the school district unitary and the district court dismissed plaintiffs' request for an injunction as moot. The court affirmed, concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in choosing to address the Board’s motion for declaration of unitary status before ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. Further, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the school district is unitary. View "Everett v. Pitt Cnty. Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging a state law redrawing the Wake County Board of Education electoral districts, arguing that under the new redistricting plan, some citizen’s votes will get significantly more weight than other’s in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of one person, one vote and the North Carolina Constitution’s promise of equal protection. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend as futile. The court concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations in support of their claim that the law violates the one person, one vote principle suffice to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Thus, plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted against the Wake County Board of Elections and the district court therefore erred in dismissing their suit. The court affirmed, however, the denial of the motion to amend because the state officials plaintiffs proposed to add as named defendants are not amenable to suit. View "Wright v. North Carolina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's summary dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Plaintiff's suit arose from allegations that prison officers used excessive force while transferring him to a different cell. The court reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff reasonably believed that he had sufficiently exhausted his remedies by complying with an internal investigation. View "Blake v. Ross" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the University under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., for discriminatory termination based on gender, retaliatory termination, and the creation of a hostile work environment. At issue was the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v.Nassar on what Title VII retaliation plaintiffs must show to survive a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the McDonnell Douglas framework, which already incorporates a but for causation analysis, provides the appropriate standard for reviewing plaintiff’s claim. Applying this framework, the court found that summary judgment in favor of the University is not warranted on plaintiff's retaliation claim where a reasonable jury could conclude from plaintiff's evidence that the University's proffered justifications were not its real reasons for firing her and that the University's actual reason for firing her was to retaliate against her complaining about sexual harassment and for her subsequent complaints of ongoing retaliation. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's retaliation claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's gender-based discrimination claim and hostile work environment claim. View "Foster v. Univ. of Maryland Eastern" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1982, alleging that correctional officers used excessive force when they forcibly extracted him from his prison cell. The officers appealed the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The parties agree that the law clearly established at the time of the extraction governs the entitlement to qualified immunity here. In Norman v. Taylor, the court held that absent the most extraordinary circumstances, a plaintiff cannot prevail on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim if his injury is de minimis. Applying Norman, the court concluded that many of plaintiff's injuries could have an enduring impact on health and well-being and were not de minimis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ussery v. Mansfield" on Justia Law

Concerned by Plaintiff’s “increasingly threatening” Facebook posts, two Marine veterans who had served with Plaintiff contacted the FBI. After interviewing Plaintiff, two FBI agents consulted with Michael Campbell, a local mental health evaluator, as to whether they should detain Plaintiff for a mental health evaluation. Campbell recommended that Plaintiff be detained. After interviewing Plaintiff, Campbell petitioned for and received a temporary detention order from a magistrate judge. Plaintiff was taken to a hospital, where he was involuntarily admitted for treatment for seven days. Following his release, Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages and injunctive relief against Campbell for violating his Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Campbell on the basis of qualified immunity. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Campbell did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights based on existing precedent; (2) Plaintiff did not make out a First Amendment violation; and (3) injunctive relief was not appropriate on this record. View "Raub v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. If convicted, Defendant faced a mandatory minimum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment. For several months, Defendant refused to plead guilty. The morning of his scheduled trial, however, Defendant accepted the government’s plea offer. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his plea had been involuntary because he had been pressured to plead guilty by the district court. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court committed plain error by impermissibly participating in the plea discussions. Remanded. View "United States v. Braxton" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, a Virginia state judge convicted Petitioner on charges of brand larceny and breaking and entering. The state appellate courts denied Petitioner’s direct appeal, and the state supreme court denied Petitioner’s habeas petition. Petitioner subsequently filed this federal habeas petition. The district court granted habeas relief on one claim, concluding that the state supreme court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington in rejecting Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As a resulting, the court vacated Petitioner’s convictions and sentence. The Fourth Circuit vacated the portion of the district court’s order granting habeas relief and remanded for dismissal of the petition, holding that the Virginia Supreme Court did not unreasonably conclude that Petitioner failed to establish Strickland prejudice. View "Jones v. Clarke" on Justia Law