Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the defendants claiming violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and expression during a primary election campaign for judgeship on the County Court of Common Pleas, district court's order granting defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed as defendants are not state actors and their actions toward plaintiff were not state actions that would subject defendants to section 1983 claims.   

Read Max v. Republican Comm. of Lancaster County, No. 08-4158

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-07-cv-04488)  

District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

Opinion Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Before:  Sloviter, Fuentes, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Sloviter, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Paul A. Rossi, Robert M. Frankhouser, Jr., Kevin M. French, Hartman Underhill & Brubaker LLP.

Counsel for Appellee:   Mark D. Schwartz

In a First Amendment case against the city of Pittsburgh challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance establishing two types of zones limiting speech around health care facilities, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, dismissed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's facial challenge is reversed; 2) the combination of the ordinance's "buffer" and "bubble" zones is invalid but either zone, individually, is valid on its face; 3) district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief with respect to plaintiff's claim of selective enforcement is affirmed but vacated with respect to her claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to particular clinic locations; and 4) plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order partially dismissing her complaint is dismissed. 

Read Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 08-1819

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-0393)  

District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

Opinion Filed October 30, 2009

Judges

Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Scirica, Chief Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: David A. Cortman, Joshua B. Bollinger, Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Lawrence G. Palladin, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee:  Yvonne S. Hilton, Michael E. Kennedy, George R. Specter. 

In plaintiff's employment discrimination action against Craftmatic under Title VII, section 1981 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), the district court's judgment is affirmed as to all of plaintiff's claims under Title VII and the PHRA as well as her section 1981 claims for a hostile work environment and retaliation as she was not an employee of Craftmatic, but rather an independent contractor.  District court's grant of Craftmatic's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's section 1981 claim that her termination was motivated by racial animus is reversed because there remain questions for a jury regarding whether Craftmatic would have terminated plaintiff's contract absent consideration of her race.     

Read Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., No. 08-2713

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-07-cv-00859)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

Opinion Filed September 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Sloviter, Ambro, and Jordan, Circuit Judges 

Opinion by: Sloviter, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Rufus A. Jennings, Timothy M. Kolman, Timothy M. Kolman & Associates

Counsel for Appellee: William G. Merchant, Hilary W. Taylor, Papernick & Gefsky

In plaintiff's gender and employment discrimination action alleging pay disparity against County-employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, district court's judgment that the Title VII claim is untimely as to paychecks plaintiff received after June 20, 2006, is reversed and remanded in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, where a failure to answer a request for a raise qualifies as a compensation decision because the result is the same as if the request had been explicitly denied.      

Read Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania, No. 07-4023

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-1630)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

Opinion Filed September 10, 2009

Judges

Before:  Barry, Smith, and Garth, Circuit Judges 
Per Curium Opinion

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Dina R. Lassow of National Women's Law Center 

Counsel for Appellee: Caroline P. Liebenguth, Office of Allegheny County Law Department. 

In an employment discrimination action under Title VII involving claims of gender stereotyping and religious harassment, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated with respect to the gender stereotyping claim as the record below is ambiguous as to whether the claim was based on sexual orientation or discrimination because of sex, and thus because both are plausible, the case presents a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary judgment.  District court's grant of summary judgment on the religious harassment claim was proper as plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element of his cause of action that there was intentional harassment because of religion.   

Read Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., No. 07-3997

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-00259)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

Argued October 1, 2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009

Judges
Before: Fisher, Chagares and Hardiman, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Hardiman

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Katie R. Eyer, Salmanson Goldshaw, Corey S. Davis, Timothy P. O'Brien

Counsel for Appellee: Kurt A. Miller, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong

In a dispute over damages and attorney's fees stemming from a Religious Freedom Restoration Act and tort action, district court judgment is vacated where that the district court assessment of the evidence was based on an improper interpretation of the interrogatories and verdict sheet and thus the court erred in attributing a portion of plaintiff's tort award to her RFRA claim. On remand, the Hensley standard should guide the district court's consideration of pendent state claims in a litigation where a plaintiff has prevailed on a fee-eligible federal claim.   

Read Abdi Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., No. 08-2500

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued May 20, 2009
Filed August 12, 2009

Judges
Before RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE, District Judge.
Opinion by RENDELL Circuit Judge.
Dissenting Opinion by GARTH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: James C. Owens, Virginia A. Seitz, Frank R. Volpe, Rebecca K. Wood, Sidley Austin LLP.

For Appellee: Drew Dorman, Derek S. Tarson, Justin P. Smith, Mary Beth Hogan, Alison J. Page, W. Barton Patterson, Erica Davila, Debevoise & Plimpton; Penny Venetis, Rutgers University.  

In an action for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs are not entitled to tuition reimbursement for plaintiff's placement at a long term psychiatric residential treatment center as the center cannot be considered an appropriate placement for tuition reimbursement purposes; and 2) plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory education for the period during which she was in the center's acute care ward as the failure to reevaluate her educational needs and develop a new IEP was attributable to the acute nature of plaintiff's medical condition.    

Read Courtney T. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 08-2676

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Argued April 14, 2009
Filed July 31, 2009

Judges
Before: MCKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS, District Judge.
Opinion by SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Joseph Anclien, Carl A. Solano, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA.

For Appellee: Dennis C. McAndrews, Gabrielle C. Sereni, McAndrews Law Offices, Berwyn, PA.

In an employment termination action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff's procedural due process rights in terminating his employment, district court judgment is affirmed where plaintiff had fair notice and an opportunity to be heard as to why the Board should not terminate his employment, and thus he received the process to which he was entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    

Read Biliski v. Red Clay Consolidated Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 08-1742

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Filed July 29, 2009

Judges
Before Before: SLOVITER, HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge
Opinion by SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Joseph M. Bernstein, Wilmington, DE.

For Appellee: Seth J. Reidenberg,  Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE.