February 2, 2017
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Young v. Town of Bar Harbor, a District Court found that a former police chief was able to bring a claim against the Town of Bar Harbor for violating his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and FMLA. In his complaint, the police chief alleged that he had been wrongfully discharged after disclosing his alcoholism, which was perceived as a disability, and that the Town had failed to reasonably accommodate him and violated his FMLA rights. The District Court found that the police chief had a valid claim for wrongful discharge due to a perceived disability and interference with his FMLA rights, but dismissed his other claims.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
February 2, 2017
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Lane v. Clark County, a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a Nevada District Court’s dismissal of a former juvenile detention center cook’s claim that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In his complaint, the cook claimed that he had been terminated due to his anxiety in violation of the ADA. The district court found that the anxiety prevented him from performing the essential functions of his job, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Therefore, his claim for violation of the ADA was dismissed.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
February 2, 2017
By Reba Weiss and Brittany Torrence
In Gera v. County of Schuylkill, the U. S. District Court of Pennsylvania rejected a pro se former corrections officer’s ADA disability and retaliation claims, granting summary judgment to Schuylkill County because the officer failed to show that he was a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA, failed to show retaliation, and his disability benefits claim precluded his ADA claim.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
February 1, 2017
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In, Lynch v. Ackley, the Second Circuit found that a police chief was entitled to summary judgment dismissing a police officer’s claim that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights. The Court also found that the police chief’s own retaliatory statements were an exercise of her First Amendment right to defend herself.
Filed Under: Free Speech Rights
December 28, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Carothers v. County of Cook, the Seventh Circuit found that a black employee at a juvenile detention center could not move forward with her Title VII race discrimination claim, despite evidence that her supervisor had told a group of employees he would “take them to the woodshed” and made a problematic comment about Malcom X. In her complaint, the employee alleged not only race discrimination, but also disability discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The Court found that because the statements were not made by the ultimate decision maker, the woodshed statement did not hold racial connotations, and the Malcom X comment was made three years prior, the County’s motion for summary judgment was appropriate.
Filed Under: Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination
December 27, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept., a white police officer applied for and was denied the position of Assistant Academy Director of the St. Louis, Missouri Police Academy, an African American woman was chosen instead. The police officer sued department officials alleging race discrimination and conspiracy to discriminate. A jury found in the officer’s favor on claims against three of his superiors regarding both claims. The department appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for a judgment as a matter of law.
Filed Under: Race Discrimination
December 21, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In McGunigle v. City of Quincy, a former Massachusetts police officer filed suit against the City of Quincy, Chief of Police, and Captain. In his suit, the officer alleged that he was wrongfully disciplined, and eventually terminated, by the department for making comments to local news organizations concerning violations of city dog ordinances infringing on his First Amendment Rights. The officer filed an additional claim of defamation against the Chief of Police for statements he made to the local newspaper. The district court found that the department’s interest in maintaining order and obedience of their officers in a public arena outweighed the officer’s interest in speech. The Court further found that the defamation claim failed because the statements did not rise to the level of malice.
Filed Under: Free Speech Rights
December 21, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Jennings v. Wayne County, a Michigan police officer was able to establish a claim for retaliation after she complained about sexual harassment. The district court found that being frozen out of meetings, not receiving backup, and being stripped of her Blackberry could constitute an adverse action. The district court also found the officer had established a First Amendment claim because her complaints about the harassment involved a matter of public concern.
Filed Under: Free Speech Rights, Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination
December 20, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In White v. City of Athens, a former Alabama police officer alleged he was retaliated against after he was fired for reporting police corruption to the local newspaper. The City argued the officer was terminated for his improper use of police databases. The US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama sided with the officer because he had shown other officers had used the police database for similar purposes and not been disciplined, creating an inference of retaliation.
Filed Under: Free Speech Rights
December 20, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Howell v. Town of Ball, a former police officer in Louisiana, alleged he was fired for cooperating with an FBI investigation of public corruption. The Fifth Circuit overturned the district court in finding that the officer was entitled to First Amendment protection for his cooperation.
