Posts

Elam v. Regions Fin. Corp., No. 09-2004, concerned a Title VII action alleging that defendant-employer discriminated against plaintiff because of her pregnancy. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) defendant provided a lengthy list of nondiscriminatory, legitimate reasons for terminating plaintiff’s employment; and 2) plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that her supervisors’ reference to plaintiff’s protected status showed an intent to discriminate against plaintiff....

Several city governments on the West Coast believe that front-line workers in large grocery stores deserve bonuses for their services during the pandemic. But instead of merely encouraging their employers to hike the workers’ pay like many of them did during the pandemic’s early days, the elected officials in those cities are seeking to pass ordinances requiring employers to do it. Seattle became the first city to take that step when the city council voted 8-0 on January 25 to require grocery stores to pay workers an additional $4 per hour for the duration of the pandemic....

Dissents are worthless, right? After all, they’re not controlling, especially dissents from orders. This dissent from an en banc rehearing denial, by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, arguing that the frequency of Brady disclosure violations has reached epidemic proportions, is one more reason why Judge Kozinski is quickly becoming a personal favorite. It’s snarky, well-written, and makes you wonder how in the heck the original panel (and the en banc deniers) got the case so wrong....

Denial of Motion to Amend Complaint Affirmed In Cohen v. Longshore, No. 09-1563, plaintiff’s appeal from the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his complaint to state claims of false imprisonment and denial of access to the courts, the court reversed the order where 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied the motion to file an amended complaint without any consideration of whether plaintiff had given an excusable cause for his delay in amending the complaint as directed; and 2) a petitioner who had no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, was not barred by Heck from pursuing a section 1983 claim....

In an action under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the Department of Labor’s (DOL) decision to deny a city’s application to be relieved of provisions of a labor agreement, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where 1) the DOL did not depart from its applicable precedents without explanation; 2) nothing precluded the city from vigorously seeking renegotiation of the agreement under the threat of foregoing any further federal assistance; and 3) the DOL provided a detailed explanation why it determined that the city’s objections were not sufficient....

While peers can judge you by the company you keep, do the cops have probable cause to stop a vehicle just because it was a leaving a cabin that may have been a meth lab? Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police may not stop a vehicle only because it emerged from a site suspected of drug activity. While speaking with Daniel Bohman and Jake Barttelt, the stopped car’s occupants, Kingsley smelled the distinctive odor of anhydrous ammonia....

In Reinhold v. Rozum, No. 08-3371, the Third Circuit faced a challenge to the district court’s denial of defendant’s request for habeas relief, filed more than ten years after his conviction for kidnapping and related crimes became final, claiming that the Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham v. California applies retroactively to his conviction. Under the Supreme Court’s three-part test for determining the retroactivity of a rule under Teague v. Lane, first the court must determine when defendant’s conviction became final....

In an 8 to 1 decision issued late last week, SCOTUS held that a defective notice to appear for a removal proceeding cannot be used to justify stopping time from accruing toward a non-citizen satisfying the physical presence requirement. The case involves a Brazilian born, now Martha’s Vineyard man, Wescley Pereira, who has been in the United States for nearly two decades on a six month visa, and now has two children that are both U....

Depending on the electoral rules of any constituency, non-human mayoral candidates may be banned or otherwise disqualified from running for office. But some towns have made the news for having four-legged leaders — what does this really mean, legally? As Long As There’s No Rule Against It… Any mayor or other local office-holder must be able to complete the duties of their position. In most localities, aspiring animal mayors will be unable to officially enter electoral races or be sworn into actual positions of authority....

District court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition for habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) the court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in concluding that petitioner’s counsel was not ineffective and that he was not prejudiced by the allegedly deficient defense; and 2) it was not unreasonable for the court to conclude that even if plaintiff’s counsel objected to the disputed instruction and preserved his argument under Childs, plaintiff could still not show prejudice under Strickland and would not have been resentenced....

In US v. Pazour, No. 10-1456, the Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant’s sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that 1) defendant’s claim of sentencing error was subject to reasonable dispute, and thus the district court did not commit plain error; and 2) the firearms possessed by defendant facilitated the theft at issue, and possession of the firearms was not accident or coincidence. As the court wrote: “A grand jury indicted Cory Pazour for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U....

Congress passed the Military Selective Service Act during World War I, which requires men between the ages of 18 and 26 to register for military service in the event of a draft. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter recommended to Congress that the Act be extended to women, who had begun to serve in non-combat roles. Congress declined to do so. In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rostker v. Goldberg that the male-only draft is constitutional based mainly on the fact that women at the time did not serve in direct combat roles....

Porter v. Winter, No. 07-17120, concerned an action challenging the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to him in Title VII administrative proceedings. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that, under New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980), federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought solely to recover attorney’s fees incurred in Title VII administrative proceedings....

It has been a week of firsts for female jurists from sparsely-populated states. On Tuesday, Stephanie Thacker was sworn in as the first female judge from West Virginia to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Wednesday, it was Alaska’s turn for the spotlight. Alaska Supreme Court Morgan Christen was sworn in as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week. Christen is the first female judge from Alaska, reports KTUU-TV....

The New York State-Federal Judicial Council, the Second Circuit Judicial Council and the New York County Lawyers’ Association (NYCLA) are co-sponsoring a first-of-its-kind CLE program on the use of affidavits in lieu of direct testimony at bench trials. This NYC CLE program, on September 20 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Ceremonial Courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, is free for attorneys who are admitted to practice in the State of New York....

Planned Parenthood is taking its battle with Utah Governor Gary Herbert to the Tenth Circuit. The state branch of the national organization filed an appeal with the circuit court on Sunday, seeking to halt Herbert’s denial of nearly $275,000 in federal funds channeled through the state to the group. Gov. Herbert made the move in response to controversial videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing abortions and fetal tissue. A federal court in Utah upheld the funding change last week, leading to this weekend’s appeal....

A federal appeals court revived a high-profile civil case against a county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal sent the case back to a trial judge, who had dismissed the complaint as moot after a state law removed clerks as signors on marriage certificates. Kim Davis, a Kentucky court clerk, had refused to issue a license to plaintiffs David Ermold and David Moore in 2015....

Many terrorists use guns. The National Rifle Association describes itself as “America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights” and generally opposes any gun control legislation. Does it necessarily follow that the NRA supports terrorists, or is itself a terrorist organization? San Francisco’s government seems to think so. The city’s Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution declaring the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization.” So, what does that mean for the gun rights group?...

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that imposed taxes on the Osage Nation of the Oklahoma area. The Tenth Circuit lawsuit dealt with the issue of whether tribal citizens who live and work in Osage County are exempt from state income taxes. The case ends at the Tenth Circuit, as SCOTUS denied the certiorari petition for the Pawhuska-based tribe. The case arose in 1999, reports NewsOK, when a member of the Osage Nation challenged the state of Oklahoma’s right to tax her income....

In an interesting twist, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch that the Virginia House of Representatives didn’t have standing to challenge the appellate court’s ruling that the election maps had been unconstitutionally, and racially, gerrymandered. In short, the High Court majority explained that the state’s House needed (but failed) to demonstrate that it had suffered a redressable injury in order to have grounds to appeal. If this is still confusing, read on for a brief, plain- English explanation of what this decision means....