Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that an expelled Eastern Michigan University (EMU) graduate student's civil rights lawsuit can proceed in a Michigan federal court, reports the Detroit Free Press.

Julea Ward, who enrolled in the EMU program in 2006 to become a high school counselor, declined to counsel a homosexual client during her school practicum because her "Christian beliefs would not allow her to affirm the client's homosexual behavior," according to the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is representing Ward.

While the Sixth Circuit is certainly buzzing today with the news of the Supreme Court's unanimous reversal in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there's another employment law case out of the circuit this week that could generate just as much attention.

On Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a terminated United Parcel Service (UPS) employee's discrimination and retaliation claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), finding that the district court erred in restricting the scope of the employee's discovery to a single, similarly-situated employee and granting summary judgment.

As the calendar changes from one year to the next, many people find themselves searching. Some are searching for resolutions, or means of personal fulfillment. Others are searching for a new calendar. Police officers are usually searching for evidence of misdeeds

And with that wish in mind, let’s take a look back at our top 4 favorite Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unreasonable search challenges from 2011.

If you read about sexual harassment claims for the saucy details, this post will be a disappointment. But if you secretly hope that a run-of-the-mill constructive discharge claim will belie the notions of respect and cohesiveness in academia, you're in for a treat with today's Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals selection.

This case, Savage v. Gee, has it all: sexual harassment claims, constructive discharge allegations, First Amendment retaliation, and a controversial reading recommendation.

We love a good conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, it’s easy to develop a conspiracy theory, but it’s difficult to prove a civil conspiracy.

Today, we’re looking at a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case evaluating an appellant’s civil conspiracy claim. First, let’s start with the facts.

We occasionally like to take a gander at the FindLaw Answers board to see which legal issues are trending. Criminal law is always popular; especially when parents are upset about their kids’ encounters with police.

We suspect that if parents are posting questions for our Answers community about excessive force, they’re probably calling local attorneys with these questions as well. With that in mind, today we’re looking at a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals qualified immunity case involving three siblings who claim that Dearborn police used excessive force in apprehending and questioning them about an armed robbery.

This week didn’t start well. The whole office is sick, the rainy season is upon us, and we missed our commuter train twice.

Then we found this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case, which combines two of our favorite topics: Warrantless searches and puppies. Suddenly, the sun is shining and things are looking up.

First, let’s talk about the puppies. A litter of 11 American bulldog puppies, to be precise.

In a timely tie-in to this week's Supreme Court hearings in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion last week in a plea bargain/ineffective counsel appeal.

Richard Newland claimed that his trial lawyer, Gary Tyack, provided ineffective assistance because he failed to explain "blow by blow" the difference between Newland's Guidelines range sentence if he pleaded guilty and his range after conviction on all counts after trial. The former was 66-76 months, the latter 101-111 months.

Newland rejected the plea deal, was convicted at trial, and was sentenced to 108 months in prison.

We’re all aware that a cop can seize drugs from a criminal, but did you know that a cop who steals a dealer’s drugs has conducted an unreasonable search?

That’s the word out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled on Friday that a police officer violates a suspect’s civil rights when he seizes drugs for personal gain.

Arthur Sease was a Memphis police officer until he was fired by the department in late 2004, after the department learned about Sease’s side gig: stealing drugs.

Prisoners lose most of the pro se appeals that we read, but today, we have a rare example of a prisoner winning in an appellate court.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an unpublished opinion this week that Michigan prison officials who ignored a prisoner's documented health needs were not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the prisoner could proceed in his civil rights claim against them.

Stephen Hall is a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). He brought a pro se civil rights claim against a group of prison officials, alleging that they unreasonably exposed him to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) despite an MDOC medical notice requiring that he be placed in tobacco-free housing.