Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a single-leg amputee, filed suit against his employer, ARE, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff was awarded damages for ARE's failure to accommodate his disability by refusing his request to teach on a lower floor. At issue in this appeal was whether ARE failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's disability by refusing his request for a classroom aide, and whether ARE's failures to accommodate his disability created a hostile work environment.The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff had not proffered sufficient undisputed facts for his hostile-work environment claim to survive summary judgment. However, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to the remaining failure-to-accommodate claim, because plaintiff's allegations presented a triable issue of fact as to whether ARE violated the ADA when it refused his request for a classroom aide. View "Hill v. Associates for Renewal in Education, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former government contractor with security clearance, filed suit raising numerous constitutional and security claims after his security clearance was revoked. The district court dismissed 23 counts, partially dismissed Count 21 and granted summary judgment to the government on the remainder of that count, and ordered plaintiff to file a more definite statement about the other six counts (Counts 23-27 and 29). The district court later granted summary judgment for the government as to those six counts.As to the frivolous constitutional claims, they were barred by Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). As to the Privacy Act claims, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims because they failed on the merits. As to the Due Process Claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), they were properly dismissed because the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. As to challenges to the DOHA proceeding, the court assumed without deciding that plaintiff had a cognizable liberty interest but that his claim was not viable. As to claims of illegal search and claims under the Store Communications Act, the district court correctly dismissed these counts for failure to state a claim. Finally, as to claims of unlawful interrogation, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction of the defendants. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Palmieri v. United States" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Defendant was convicted of roughly two dozen criminal charges arising out of an armed robbery in 2005. Defendant argued that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to appeal one of his convictions for assault with intent to kill while armed with a knife based on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The court held that defendant failed to overcome the strong presumption that his appellate counsel's conduct met the objective standard of reasonableness. In this case, a rational juror could reject defendant's self-defense claim when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and thus appellate counsel did not act deficiently by foregoing a losing argument. Furthermore, defendant was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington. Finally, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant's Fifth Amendment claim and declined to expand the certificate of appealability. View "Waters v. Lockett" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to set aside a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on one of her due process claims. Plaintiff filed suit against the District after she was terminated based on accusations that she had improperly influenced the bidding process for the District's healthcare contracts. Plaintiff alleged that the District violated her Fifth Amendment due-process rights by leaking these accusations to the press and denying her an opportunity to refute them. The court held that the District failed to preserve its speech argument and such failure precluded appellate review where the District failed to identify any exceptional circumstances. The court also held that precedent did not mandate a rigid minimum-duration rule governing how long a former government employee must be unemployed before she can claim that the government's actions had the broad effect of largely precluding her from pursuing her chosen career. Therefore, the court rejected the District's argument that two years of unemployment is never sufficient to establish that plaintiff has been deprived of her liberty interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the District's motion for judgment as a matter of law. View "Campbell v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

At issue was whether plaintiff's employment discrimination claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., were subject to ordinary principles of res judicata, even though at the time she filed her earlier suit she had not yet received a notice of her right to sue for those claims. The DC Circuit joined its sister circuits and held that res judicata applies to such Title VII claims, at least in the absence of a particularized showing that prosecuting or otherwise preserving the claims in the initial litigation was infeasible. In this case, including plaintiff's Title VII claims in her initial litigation was entirely feasible. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Ashbourne v. Hansberry" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in an action alleging that they violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause and using excessive force to subdue him. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim of an unlawful arrest because the officers could have reasonably believed plaintiff was intoxicated and posed a danger to himself or others. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The court also held that plaintiff's contention that one of the officers intended to slam plaintiff's head into the bar window when executing a takedown was not supported by the record and the takedown maneuver used by the officer did not violate clearly established law. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Hedgpeth v. Rahim" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of plaintiff's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of unreasonable seizures. In this case, plaintiff was escorted by officers out of an event at George Washington University where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was delivering a speech. Plaintiff stood during the speech, facing the audience and blocking the view of audience members, wearing a shirt proclaiming "Veterans for Peace." He did not respond or react to officers' repeated requests to come with them. The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff because they had issued a sufficient demand for plaintiff to leave and he refused their demand. The court also held that the use of force was not so excessive that no reasonable officer could have believed in the lawfulness of his action. View "McGovern v. Brown" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of plaintiff's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of unreasonable seizures. In this case, plaintiff was escorted by officers out of an event at George Washington University where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was delivering a speech. Plaintiff stood during the speech, facing the audience and blocking the view of audience members, wearing a shirt proclaiming "Veterans for Peace." He did not respond or react to officers' repeated requests to come with them. The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff because they had issued a sufficient demand for plaintiff to leave and he refused their demand. The court also held that the use of force was not so excessive that no reasonable officer could have believed in the lawfulness of his action. View "McGovern v. Brown" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action alleging that his supervisors at the EPA discriminated against him because of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621–634. The court held that there was no excuse for plaintiff's noncompliance with an EEOC regulation requiring a federal employee to contact a counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory. In regard to plaintiff's timely claims of age discrimination, the court held that he failed to establish that he suffered an adverse employment action where each of his claims did not cause objectively tangible harm of the sort that would render them adverse employment actions. In regard to the retaliation claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to show a causal connection between the reassignment of his agents and his protected activities. View "Drielak v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

In 2011, Metropolitan Police Officer Leo and three other officers, part of the Gun Recovery Unit, encountered Briscoe in an apartment parking lot. When an officer asked Briscoe if he was carrying a gun, Briscoe fled. Two officers pursued Briscoe on foot, while Leo and another pursued in a police vehicle. Leo testified that he saw Briscoe’s right hand moving toward his waistband, causing Leo to fear that he was reaching for a gun. Briscoe repeatedly looked over his shoulder, toward the officers, and turned toward the police vehicle, pointing what appeared to Leo to be a gun. Leo fired two shots, striking Briscoe in the back. Briscoe was transported to the hospital where he died as a result of the wounds. A police search of the scene of the shooting recovered no actual firearm but produced a broken BB gun, which closely resembled a Walther PPK pistol. No fingerprints were found on the weapon. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court dismissed some claims. Some counts went to trial, resulting in a verdict for the defense. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, upholding the exclusion of Briscoe’s cell phone bill from evidence and the denial of sanctions for the prosecution’s late disclosure of a fingerprint report and of the fact that the BB gun had been swabbed for DNA. View "Lane v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law