Posts

In a Title VII action claiming that a city discriminated against white firefighter candidates for a promotion by discarding their test results based on a statistical racial disparity, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where the city’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII, because a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity is far from a strong basis in evidence that the city would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the test results....

This week, the United States Supreme Court decided to take up a series of Title VII cases about whether sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under federal employment discrimination laws. The case law, at this point, has basically found that sexual orientation and gender identity fall under sex or gender discrimination, as discriminating against a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is one and the same as discriminating based on their gender or sex....

City officials in Bloomfield, New Mexico, loved their Ten Commandments monument. They loved it so much, in fact, that they ran up a hefty legal bill in three separate court proceedings over six years trying to convince judges that its existence on city property was not a violation of federal laws requiring separation of church and state. In the end, after the U.S. Supreme Court failed to take the case last year and ordered that the structure be removed from city property, all the city had to show for its efforts was a $700,000 legal bill that they were hard-pressed to pay....

Earlier this week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with an issue of first impression: whether state tort claims, brought by private property owners against an in-state source of pollution, were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The district court found that the claims were preempted. The Third Circuit disagreed, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Plaintiffs consist of a class of 1,500 people who own or live in residences within one mile of a coal-fired power generating plant run by defendant, GenOn....

A narrow Supreme Court majority has struck down Louisiana’s law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals - a significant victory for abortion rights. In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts joined the four “liberal” justices on the court to invalidate the law. Haven’t We Heard This Story Before? Yes, indeed, we have. Louisiana’s admitting privileges law is almost identical to a Texas statute the court struck down in 2016....

Arthur Gallagher is a Clayton, Missouri resident who regularly uses the city’s parks and “ecstatically enjoys smoking tobacco products while doing so.” Sadly for Gallagher, the Clayton Board of Aldermen enacted an ordinance prohibiting smoking “in or on any property or premises owned or leased for use by the City of Clayton, including buildings, grounds, parks, [and] playgrounds.” The ordinance established several exceptions, including allowing outdoor smoking on “streets, alleys, rights of way and sidewalks other than sidewalks and pedestrian paths in parks,” but gave the City Manager discretion to prohibit smoking in these areas during “community events, fairs, festivals, neighborhood events and similar public gatherings....

Sentence of defendant convicted for drug and firearm related offenses reversed US v. Corona-Gonzalez, 09-3993, concerned a challenge to the district court’s imposition of a sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment and a term of five years of supervised release, in a prosecution of defendant for drug and firearm related offenses. In reversing the sentence, the court remanded the case for resentencing in holding that the district court committed plain error during defendant’s sentencing hearing as there is nothing in the record to support the district court’s statements at the sentencing hearing regarding defendant’s prior removal and reentry into the United States, and this plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights....

A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm is reversed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) as defendant failed to indicate whether he was invoking his rights under the IADA; but 2) ambiguity in a jury instruction that defendant was in constructive possession of the firearm was not harmless error and required reversal and a new trial....

Sentence for drug crimes is vacated and remanded where: 1) a criminal defendant should have access to the material on which the court will base its sentencing decision and an opportunity to respond to information that is prejudicial to the defendant’s cause when the court is evaluating a motion under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3582(c)(2); and 2) the procedure employed by the court with respect to the motion for reduction was an abuse of discretion as the defendant was not provided with a copy of the probation office’s memorandum regarding defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence and was unable to answer the negative information in the memo....

Defendant’s sentence for illegally reentering the U.S. is affirmed where a conviction under 8 U.S.C. section 1324(a)(1) is categorically an “alien smuggling offense” under U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), and thus the district court properly enhanced defendant’s sentence. Read US v. Guzman-Mata, No. 08-10061 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted February 9, 2009 Filed August 27, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Smith Counsel For Appellant: David T. Shannon, Assistant Arizona Federal Public Defender, Tuscon, AZ...

In a money laundering prosecution, denial of defendants’ motions for acquittal on Double Jeopardy grounds is affirmed where the Double Jeopardy Clause did not categorically foreclose a new trial because the conspiracy charges in the indictment were considerably broader in scope than the wire fraud charges on which defendants were acquitted. Read US v. Wittig, No. 08-3220 Appellate Information Filed August 10, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Gorsuch Counsel For Appellants:...

A Putnam County, Indiana, sheriff’s deputy who was convicted for excessive force won’t get off with just a 14-month sentence, the Seventh Circuit ruled last Thursday. Calling the sentence “light,” when compared to similar cases, the court demanded that sheriff’s deputy Terry Joe Smith be resentenced. Smith was convicted following a series of violent episodes in 2012, characterized by the court as “violent, gratuitous, and sadistic,” which included beating subdued, unresisting, and handcuffed suspects....

Convicted for child pornography charges, Timothy Vanderwerff wanted to make a plea agreement. The prosecution was on board with the deal. Everything was fine until the trial court decided to use this case to make a point about the evils of plea bargains. And so the court flat-out denied the agreement, emphasizing its distaste for plea bargains in general. Why did the district court hate plea bargains so much? It offered a few reasons....

According to the NALP Foundation for Law Career Research and Education, associate attrition at law firms remains high. Of every 20 associates hired, 15 left within six years. That amounted to an 18% yearly attrition rate. The results of the NALP survey were released in October. The high attrition rate is not entirely without accident, however. According to the NALP, law firms encouraged 24% of all associate departures. The most common reasons attorneys left their firms were:...

Petition for review of BIA’s decision to remove a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States on the ground that he knowingly attempted to smuggle illegal aliens into the country is denied as there is reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record to support the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that the government proved petitioner’s conviction by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Petitioner’s due process claims are rejected as there is substantial support the BIA’s findings that he was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his case before a neutral IJ....

According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a district court can require a sexual offender assessment – not treatment, just an assessment – as a condition of supervised release when the defendant had a history of sexual violence involving weapons and his current offense involves a weapon. The appellate court reasoned that this type of assessment was “no greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary” to punish, deter, protect the public from or rehabilitate the defendant....

US v. Pape, No. 09-2336, concerned a challenge to district court’s imposition of a 90-month sentence followed by 20 years’ supervised release for a conviction for possession of child pornography. In affirming the dstrict court’s sentence, the court held that the defendant’s arguments about his history and parenting obligations were adequately considered. Furthermore, where sentences are within or below the guidelines, as in this case, a district court is presumed to have considered arguments about unwarranted disparities....

In an Americans with Disabilities Act action, the District Court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to Defendant is affirmed where Plaintiff produced no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant regarded him as substantially limited in the ability to perform a class of jobs. Read Dillon v. Mtn. Coal Co., No. 08-1004 Appellate Information Filed June 23, 2009 Judges Judge Tacha delivered the opinion of the Court....

Political and economic protests can take many forms: marches, strikes, walk-outs, and sit-ins. Many of these are protected by the First Amendment’s free speech provisions, but these rights are not always absolute. For example, marches and gatherings may still need to acquire the proper permits; some industry workers (like the police) are prohibited from going on strike; and a sit-in can turn into criminal trespassing. Even boycotts – when consumers collectively refuse to purchase products from, or do business with a manufacturer or seller they don’t like – have their legal limits....

An attempt by the Justice Department to speed up the death penalty process survived a challenge in the Ninth Circuit last week. Under a federal program, states that provide certified, competent representation to capital prisoners can have those prisoners’ federal habeas petitions “fast-tracked,” dropping the time prisoners have to file habeas petitions in half, reducing delays before the guillotine falls. Two capital defense providers sued, arguing that the new regulations made it impossible to tell if state programs would be certified, making it difficult for them to protect death row inmates’ rights....