In Nelson v. City of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the City's motion for summary judgment and permitted the plaintiff's disability discrimination claim to go to trial. The Court reasoned that there was no clear evidence that the former officer could not perform the essential functions of the job and that the issue was proper for trial.
In Maish v. Napalitano, U. S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the Border Patrol's motion for summary judgment and permitted a Border Patrol applicant’s disability discrimination claims to go to trial. The Court concluded the applicant, Maish, had a viable claim under the federal Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination when the Border Patrol failed to hire Maish after learning of his mental illness.
In Felkins v. City of Lakewood, the U.S District Court of Colorado addressed cross motions for summary judgment and granted defendant’s motion, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s case. The Court ruled that she did not establish that she was disabled.
In DeStefano v. City of Philadelphia, the Court dismissed cross motions for summary judgment, concluding that Orlando DeStefano’s disability discrimination claims under the federal Rehabilitation Act may go to trial for a knee injury when the issue is whether patrolling is part of a lieutenant’s essential functions.
In Mendel v. City of Gibraltar, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the City of Gibraltar for a police dispatcher’s Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference claim. The Plaintiff alleged that he was illegally terminated while on statutory leave. The Court held that the Plaintiff would not have been able to return to work after exhausting his 12 weeks of FMLA leave and therefore he did not have a valid FMLA interference claim.
In Holbrook v. Lee Cnty., a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied in part the employer, Lee County’s summary judgment motion against a former paramedic’s First Amendment retaliation claim for speaking out about the Employer’s Medicare and Medicaid billing practices.
In DeLee v. City of Plymouth, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a police officer returning from military leave was entitled to full longevity pay for his twelve years of employment under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The Court noted that the City’s of Plymouth’s “longevity benefit is more appropriately characterized as a reward for lengthy service rather than as compensation for worked performed the preceding year” and therefore protected by USERRA.
In Williams v. Ala. Dep’t of Corr., an Alabama District Court held that an African-American correctional officer failed to prove that he was terminated on the basis of race. Even though the officer tried to show that the white officer was treated differently, the Court was not convinced the two officers were similarly situated.
In Nissen v. Pierce County, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two held that “because some of the private cellular phone call logs and text messages . . . [of a prosecutor that were requested by the Plaintiff] may qualify as . . . [‘public records’ under the state’s Public Records Act] the superior court erred in granting the County’s . . . motion to dismiss.” The Court stated that “call logs for a government official’s private cellular phone constitute ‘public records’ only with regard to the calls that relate to government business and only if these call logs are used or retained by the government agency.” The Court also stated “text messages sent or received by a government official constitute ‘public records’ only if the text messages relate to government business.”
In Cox v. Onondaga Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of retaliation complaints by white Deputy Sheriffs (located in the state of New York). Even though the Deputies had set forth a prima facie case of retaliation, the Sheriff’s Department was able to demonstrate non-retaliatory reasons for its actions. The Deputies were unable to rebut the Department’s non-retaliatory explanations with evidence of pretext.
