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

A former employee of a company signed a document as a condition of her employment that purported to shorten the period in which she could sue her employer for workplace disputes, including discrimination claims, to 180 days. This agreement included a tolling provision for the period when a charge was pending before an administrative agency. The employee was terminated and, after filing timely administrative charges with the EEOC and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, she received a right-to-sue letter. She then filed suit in federal court, alleging violations of Title VII, the ADEA, and the Maryland Fair Employment Practice Act (MFEPA).After the employer moved to dismiss on the grounds that the lawsuit was untimely under the agreement, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, ruled in favor of the employer. The district court concluded the parties had validly agreed to shorten the limitations period, making the employee’s claims untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, as to the Title VII and ADEA claims, private parties may not, by advance agreement, prospectively shorten the statutory time periods for filing suit provided by Congress. The court reasoned that judicial enforcement of such agreements would undermine the comprehensive and uniform remedial schemes established by those statutes. Therefore, the court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Title VII and ADEA claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the MFEPA claims, finding that Maryland law permits reasonable contractual modifications of limitations periods and that the employee had not demonstrated the provision was unreasonably short or otherwise invalid under state law. View "Thomas v. EOTech, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was mistakenly arrested in West Virginia due to an arrest warrant that had been issued for another person with a similar name. After being held in custody, the prosecutor determined at an initial hearing that the plaintiff was not the intended suspect and dismissed the charges. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the city and the officers involved, alleging malicious prosecution and a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights due to an arrest without probable cause.Prior to review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia dismissed the claim. The district court applied West Virginia’s one-year statute of limitations for certain personal actions under West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(c), concluding that the claim accrued when the charges were dismissed and that the plaintiff’s suit, filed 23 months later, was time-barred. The district court also found that the complaint did not plausibly allege a basis for municipal liability against the city.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The Fourth Circuit held that the applicable statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in West Virginia is the two-year period for personal injuries under West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(b), not the one-year period applied by the district court. Because the plaintiff filed suit within two years after her claim accrued, her claim against the officers was timely. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the city because the complaint did not allege a municipal policy or custom, as required by Monell v. Department of Social Services. The Fourth Circuit therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cooper v. City of Wheeling" on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy in Virginia arrested an individual for skateboarding on a public road and suspected public intoxication. During the arrest, the deputy punched the individual in the face multiple times, causing significant injuries, including facial fractures and a brain hemorrhage. The individual sued the deputy for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for common law battery. The deputy argued that the force he used was necessary because the individual resisted arrest and that, regardless, he was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia reviewed the case on the deputy’s motion for summary judgment. The district court examined the record, including body camera footage, and found that several key facts were disputed, such as whether the individual had surrendered and ceased resisting before the deputy continued to use force. The court held that if a jury found in favor of the individual on these disputed facts, it would be clearly established that the level of force used was excessive. Therefore, the district court denied the deputy’s motion for summary judgment, including his claim of qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed its jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity at this interlocutory stage. The court explained that it could not review the district court’s factual determinations but could consider whether, taking the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the facts as viewed by the district court, prior precedent clearly established that the deputy’s actions would constitute excessive force. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Barricks v. Wright" on Justia Law

An employee of MITRE Corporation, serving as a Principal Business Process Engineer, contracted COVID-19 twice. After experiencing long-COVID symptoms that prevented her from returning to her occupation, she applied for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under her employer’s ERISA-governed plan, administered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Reliance denied her claim, asserting she was not “Totally Disabled.” She submitted further medical documentation and filed an internal appeal. The plan and ERISA regulations required Reliance to respond within 45 days, extendable by another 45 days only for “special circumstances,” with written notice specifying the reason and expected decision date.Reliance took more than 45 days to issue a decision, did not specify a date for resolution, and cited only routine medical review as justification for delay. The employee sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after Reliance failed to timely decide her appeal. The district court found that Reliance had not complied with ERISA’s timing and notice requirements, held that de novo review (rather than deferential review) was appropriate, and ruled in favor of the employee, awarding LTD benefits and interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether Reliance’s delay deprived it of deferential review of its benefit determination. The court held that, because Reliance failed to decide the internal appeal within the required time and had not justified its delay with a special circumstance, it forfeited any entitlement to deference. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that de novo review applied, found no error in the district court’s factual findings or legal conclusions, and upheld the award of benefits to the employee. View "Cogdell v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Two Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) were employed by American Anesthesiology of Virginia, a subsidiary of North American Partners in Anesthesia (NAPA), and worked exclusively at medical facilities operated by a health care system. In 2022, the health care system denied their requests for exemptions from its Covid-19 vaccination policy, resulting in the suspension of their clinical privileges. Approximately two months later, NAPA terminated their employment. The CRNAs each filed lawsuits: one sued the health care system for discrimination under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA), and the other sued both the health care system and NAPA under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the VHRA. Both plaintiffs alleged that the health care system was their joint employer with NAPA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed both complaints. It found that neither plaintiff plausibly alleged the health care system was their employer, as necessary for liability under the statutes invoked. Additionally, it dismissed the claims against NAPA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the plaintiff did not name NAPA in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. The district court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaints as to the health care system, but upon amendment, again dismissed with prejudice, concluding that the new allegations still did not support a joint employer relationship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the health care system was their employer under the “joint employment” doctrine, applying a nine-factor control test from Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. The court further held that the plaintiff’s claims against NAPA were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of both complaints in full. View "Hoffman v. INOVA Health Care Services" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former Federal Air Marshal, worked for over seven years within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). She began her employment after disclosing several vision-related medical conditions, and over time developed additional health problems, including cardiac and nerve issues. As her conditions worsened, TSA placed her on temporary “light duty” and reassigned her to a ground-based Regional Coordinator role with limited flight requirements. Eventually, TSA determined she could not meet the essential medical standards of her position and advised her to seek reassignment. The plaintiff requested reassignment due to her inability to perform the essential duties of her current role and was ultimately transferred to a position at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), a separate division within the Department of Homeland Security.Following her reassignment, the plaintiff experienced difficulties in her new role and unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of her reassignment. She subsequently filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that TSA failed to accommodate her disability under the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her claim, finding that she had not plausibly alleged that she was a “qualified individual” capable of performing the essential functions of her desired position. The court emphasized her own admission that she could not perform those duties and concluded that TSA had provided reasonable accommodations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” for her desired position because she conceded her inability to perform its essential functions, even with accommodations. The court further held that TSA met its obligation by providing reasonable accommodations, including reassignment, and was not required to offer a permanent “light duty” position. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Redding v. Noem" on Justia Law

A physician was charged with unlawfully distributing oxycodone, a controlled substance, after prescribing it to a patient he knew was addicted to opioids, and who subsequently died of a drug overdose. The government alleged that the prescriptions were not issued for legitimate medical purposes and were outside the usual course of professional practice. The physician pled guilty to all charges in 2019. At his plea hearing, the district court explained that the government would have to prove the prescriptions were unauthorized but, following then-binding Fourth Circuit precedent, did not tell him the government also had to prove he knew his conduct was unauthorized.Nearly three years later, the Supreme Court decided Ruan v. United States, holding that, under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the government must prove that a physician “knowingly or intentionally” acted in an unauthorized manner when prescribing controlled substances. The physician filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions, arguing his guilty plea was invalid because he had not been informed of the scienter requirement articulated in Ruan. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied the motion, finding the claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised earlier and that Ruan was not so novel as to excuse the default, since similar arguments were available and made by others at the time of the plea.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the legal basis for the physician’s Ruan-style mens rea claim was reasonably available at the time of his guilty plea, given existing Supreme Court precedent such as Rehaif v. United States. Therefore, the claim was not sufficiently novel to provide cause to overcome procedural default, and collateral relief was precluded. View "United States v. Dimkpa" on Justia Law

Steven Jamerson was on supervised release in Western North Carolina after serving a sentence for a federal conviction. He violated the terms of his supervised release, prompting the initiation of revocation proceedings. In November 2023, a magistrate judge released him pending the outcome of these proceedings, under the condition that he remain in the custody of his mother, Connie Jamerson, who agreed to act as his third-party custodian and ensure his compliance with all release conditions, including self-surrender if sentenced to imprisonment.At the February 2024 revocation hearing, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina revoked Steven Jamerson’s supervised release and imposed a four-month prison sentence. Rather than remanding him immediately, the court allowed him to self-surrender at a later date, maintaining the same release conditions, including his mother’s custodial responsibility. Both Steven Jamerson and Connie Jamerson received notice of the surrender date. When Steven failed to report as directed in March 2024, Connie Jamerson took no action to ensure his compliance, later stating that her son was responsible for himself. Steven was apprehended nearly a month later.The government moved for an order to show cause why Connie Jamerson should not be held in indirect criminal contempt. Following a bench trial, the District Court found that the November 2023 Release Order—and the custodial relationship it established—remained in effect through the self-surrender date. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Connie Jamerson willfully violated this order by failing to ensure her son’s surrender and sentenced her to three days’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that a valid and sufficiently clear court order existed and that Connie Jamerson willfully violated it. View "United States v. Jamerson" on Justia Law

A student with autism, Y.A., reported to his family that he had been sexually assaulted by fellow students at his middle school. The family’s report to the school prompted an investigation led by Detective Jonathan Graham. Another student, A.D., claimed to have witnessed the assault and identified three perpetrators, including a boy with the same first name as L.M. Although A.D. could not pick L.M. out of a photo lineup, the school later identified L.M. as the individual A.D. had previously accused of bullying. Based on the forensic interviews and supporting evidence, Graham submitted his findings to the Loudoun County Juvenile Intake Office, which determined that probable cause existed for a juvenile petition and issued a detention order for L.M. The charges against L.M. were later dropped when inconsistencies in A.D.’s statements came to light.L.M., joined by other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Graham and others, alleging violations of Virginia law and the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding that L.M. had not plausibly alleged that his seizure was unsupported by probable cause or that Graham was the cause of his detention, given the independent determination by the Juvenile Intake Officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the facts alleged did not support a plausible claim for malicious prosecution under federal or state law because probable cause existed and there were no allegations that Graham withheld material information or misled the Juvenile Intake Officer. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "L.M. v. Graham" on Justia Law

The case concerns two individuals who previously worked for a consulting firm that provided proprietary software to several state agencies. After leaving the company, they joined a competitor and helped secure a contract to develop similar software for other states. In 2016, a whistleblower alleged that the defendants' new employer was using materials misappropriated from their former company. This triggered a multi-agency federal investigation that lasted approximately six years. By the time charges were brought, two potentially significant witnesses had died, and several state agencies had destroyed documents that might have been relevant to the defense.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, after the defendants moved to dismiss, found that the loss of the witnesses' testimony and the destruction of documents resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendants. The district court concluded that the government's lengthy investigation did not sufficiently justify the preindictment delay, given the prejudice to the defense, and dismissed ten out of fourteen counts in the superseding indictment on due process grounds. The government appealed this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that, even assuming the defendants suffered actual and substantial prejudice, the government's preindictment delay was the result of a good faith, ongoing investigation and not motivated by bad faith or an attempt to gain a tactical advantage. The Fourth Circuit clarified that investigative delay, without improper motive, does not violate due process, even if it results in prejudice to the defendant. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the counts and remanded the case for further proceedings on all counts. View "US v. Minkkinen" on Justia Law