Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case presented a constitutional challenge to Texas's statutory scheme, which does not allow 18- to 20-year-old adults to carry handguns in public. The court held that the state scheme withstood this challenge because the court was bound by a prior panel opinion of this court, NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives. Because plaintiffs Jennings and Harmon were now 21, the court remanded their claims to the district court with instructions to dismiss them as moot. The court also reversed the district court's ruling that the remaining plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge Texas's general criminal provision barring persons from carrying handguns in public. Finally, with respect to the general criminal provision, the court rendered, and with respect to the licensing law the court affirmed the district court, holding that the Texas scheme did not violate the Second or the Equal Protection Clause. View "Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of America Inc, et al. v. McCraw" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, a deputy officer, following an altercation between the parties where plaintiff alleged claims of false arrest and excessive force. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and state-law official immunity on plaintiff's state-law claims. The court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's false arrest claim because a reasonable officer at the scene would have thought that he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, but not on plaintiff's excessive force claim. In addition, defendant was entitled to official immunity on plaintiff's state-law false arrest and imprisonment claim but not on plaintiff's state-law assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and dismissed in part. View "Ramirez v. Martinez" on Justia Law

A jury found that Raytheon willfully violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Tex. Lab. Code 21.001 et seq., by terminating plaintiff because of his age. Both parties appealed. The court affirmed the finding of liability; affirmed in part the award of liquidated damages, and vacated the liquidated damages award for enhanced pension because it was a future, not past loss; vacated the damages for mental anguish, rejected plaintiff's issues on cross-appeal; and remanded for reconsideration of the front pay award. View "Miller v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a contract FBI employee, sued the government under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment. The court concluded that subsection (g) created a security exemption to Title VII where access was denied to a premise where secure information was kept. Therefore, plaintiff could not be granted relief under Title VII where the government advanced numerous reasons for revocation of her access to the building where secured information was kept, all of which were related to security breaches she allegedly committed. View "Toy v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, claiming that officers violated their right to freedom from excessive force and the officers acted in furtherance of a City official policy of racial profiling and discrimination. At issue was whether the officer at issue should be granted qualified immunity for his use of force against two of the plaintiffs. The officer fired his pistol at one plaintiff three times, striking him once in the chest and causing serious injury. Because no genuine dispute of material fact existed for whether the officer at issue directed deadly force against that plaintiff and non-deadly force at another plaintiff was objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law, the Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of the officer was affirmed. View "Tolan, et al v. Cotton, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a professor at LSU, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on his race, religion, national origin, age, and gender. Although plaintiff asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, he could not overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young because he named only LSU, LSU Health, and the LSU Board as defendants. Therefore, the court found that sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff's state law claims were also barred by sovereign immunity. With regard to plaintiff's remaining claims, the court recognized that plaintiff was not required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at the pleading stage, but the court nonetheless concluded that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Raj v. LSU, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist faith, appealed from the district court's ruling on summary judgment that plaintiff's employer, First Student, reasonably accommodated his religion. Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and they emphasize the importance of refraining from secular work during this time. First Student terminated plaintiff for excessive absenteeism when he did not show up to work on Fridays. The court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate at this stage of the litigation because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether First Student reasonably accommodated plaintiff and whether accommodating plaintiff constituted an undue hardship on First Student. View "Antoine v. First Student, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Luminant, his employer, alleging several unlawful employment practices. The jury agreed with plaintiff that plaintiff's complaints motivated Luminant's decision to discipline him. The jury also found, however, that Luminant proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have made the "same decision" irrespective of his complaints. The district court entered judgment in Luminant's favor and taxed all costs against plaintiff. Plaintiff moved to retax costs and sought an award of attorney's fees. The court held that 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)(i) authorized cost-and-fee-shifting only for violations of section 2000e-2(m). Retaliation did not violate section 2000e-2(m). Consequently, the district court correctly decided that section 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)(i) did not authorize cost-and-fee-shifting. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Carter v. Luminant Power Services Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Texas state prisoner of Muslim faith, filed a pro se complaint against TDCJ pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-5, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claimed that TDCJ violated RLUIPA and his constitutional rights by prohibiting him from wearing a beard and from wearing a white head covering, known as a Kufi, to and from worship services. The district court granted declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of plaintiff to the extent that TDCJ's policy prohibited him from wearing a quarter-inch beard. TDCJ appealed. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the district court did not violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1), which required that the district court find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. On the merits, the court held that TDCJ had not satisfied its burden of showing that the no-beard policy was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interests of controlling costs and in security by promoting easy identification of inmates. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Garner v. Kennedy, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, arguing pro se, appealed the district court's summary judgment on his racial discrimination claims against Huntington. The court granted Huntington's motion to summarily dismiss the appeal because plaintiff's appellate brief failed reasonably to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, which required a statement of issues presented for review. View "Davison v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc." on Justia Law