Harrington v. Cty. of Suffolk, No. 09-3911, involved an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 asserting that defendants deprived plaintiffs of a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause by conducting an inadequate investigation into their son’s fatal traffic accident.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that plaintiffs had no property interest in an adequate police investigation.

Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc., No. 08-4387, concerned an action by Russian immigrants alleging that their former employer discriminated and retaliated against them based on their national origin.  The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the action following removal, holding that plaintiffs’ state-court complaint neither invoked, nor substantially relied upon, any collective bargaining agreement, and therefore was not subject to Garmon preemption.

Related Resources

  • Full Text of Harrington v. Cty. of Suffolk, No. 09-3911
  • Full Text of Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc., No. 08-4387

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules