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

Plaintiffs, individual government contractors, challenged 52 U.S.C. 30119(a)(1) as violating their First Amendment and equal protection rights. 52 U.S.C. 30119(a)(1) barred individuals and firms from making federal campaign contributions while they negotiate or perform federal contracts. The court rejected plaintiffs' challenge because the concerns that spurred the original bar remain as important today as when the statute was enacted, and because the statute is closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms. The court stated that there is no dispute regarding the legitimacy or importance of the interests that support the contractor contribution ban. The ban is not only supported by the compelling interest in protecting against quid pro quo corruption and its appearance, it is also supported by the obviously important interest in protecting merit-based public administration commonly at issue in cases involving limits on partisan activities by government employees. Further, the statute employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational freedoms, and does not deprive the plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws View "Wagner v. Federal Election Comm'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a lawyer for the PBGC, filed suit claiming that, in retaliation for her Title VII activities, the PBGC made her work environment a hostile one. Both of plaintiff's complaints have been consolidated on appeal. The court concluded that the incidents the PBGC failed to remediate would not themselves constitute a retaliatory hostile work environment, and that several instances of rude emails, name-calling, lost tempers and unprofessional behavior do not amount to a retaliatory hostile work environment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of her two complaints. View "Baird v. Gotbaum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal prison inmate, filed suit alleging that the BOP failed to adequately respond to his requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., and that several policies adopted by the BOP violate the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for the BOP on the FOIA claims and dismissed the constitutional claims. The court concluded that because it cannot determine whether the BOP conducted an adequate search based upon the declarations in the record, the judgment of the district court on the Code 408 FOIA claim is vacated and the court remanded for further proceedings. The court held that sovereign immunity does not bar plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the BOP and the individual defendants in their official capacities; plaintiff exhausted all the administrative remedies “available” to him with respect to his claim that defendants unlawfully retained interest earned on money held in inmates’ deposit accounts; the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that the prices charged for commissary items and telephone calls are “too high;” the court vacated the district court’s order insofar as it dismisses plaintiff’s claim that Code 334 is unconstitutional and remanded for further proceedings; and the court affirmed as to the remaining claims. View "DeBrew v. Atwood" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed by WASA for sixteen years, filed suit against WASA on numerous grounds, including violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., by retaliating against him for opposing racially discriminatory employment practices. The district court dismissed the complaint and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that, because plaintiff's complaint alleged facts that, if shown, would be at least sufficient to state a prime facie case of retaliation - and perhaps enough to survive summary judgment - it necessarily alleged facts sufficient to render his claim plausible at the motion to dismiss stage. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal. View "Harris v. DC Water and Sewer Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(9) and (b)(3) and implementing regulations are unconstitutional because the provisions, in effect, prohibit citizens not residing in any state from purchasing firearms. At issue was whether a citizen who permanently resides outside the United States has a right under the Second Amendment to purchase a firearm for self-defense while he is temporarily visiting this country. In this case, the court concluded that there are too many unanswered questions regarding plaintiff’s particular situation even though he seeks to mount an as applied challenge. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and remanded for trial. View "Dearth v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging that they violated the Fourth Amendment and D.C. law because each officer assaulted her son and one killed him. The court concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the actions of the officer who fired the fatal shots, thus making himself the only surviving eyewitness to the actual killing. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his favor. The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the second officer. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flythe v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Whole Foods, alleging mistreatment that amounted to discrimination based on his disability and his race. Plaintiff suffers from a cognitive disability due to traumatic brain injury. He alleged that Whole Foods employees mistreated him and eventually orchestrated his false arrest for theft and trespassing. The court dismissed the suit. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's pleadings set out allegations sufficient to survive dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182(a), claim. The court held plaintiff's Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000a(a), claim in abeyance until he complies with the CRA notice provision. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of both the ADA and CRA claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Whole Foods" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., seeking an order requiring DCPS to provide her son with compensatory education. The district court dismissed the suit as moot because the school system responded to the complaint by offering an individualized education plan that is adequate to keep the child on track going forward. The court concluded, however, that the district court failed to address whether the child was entitled to compensatory education, which is a remedy that remains available. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Boose v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12102 et seq., discrimination suit in which a jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff, a diabetic, was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that there was evidence presented at trial that plaintiff could control his diabetes by eating three meals a day, plus snacks, and taking his medication. The court concluded that there is no good reason to assume that the jury was misled by the Sutton v. United States Air Lines, Inc. instruction given by the district court where the jury had before it sufficient evidence to determine that plaintiff was allowed to eat his regular meals and snacks, and thus conclude that he did not have a disability under the ADA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lee v. Government of D.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against law enforcement officers, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, after he was tased when resisting arrest at an Occupy D.C. encampment. The district court concluded that the officers were protected by qualified immunity against plaintiff's claims because the officer's use of the Taser did not violate the Constitution. The court agreed with the district court that qualified immunity shields the officers from plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, but on different grounds. The court held that a person actively resisting arrest does not have a clearly established right against a single use of a Taser to subdue him. The court also granted summary judgment to the officers on the First Amendment claim where plaintiff failed to meaningfully advance the argument on appeal. View "Lash v. Lemke" on Justia Law