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

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

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of her civil rights action against the District. Plaintiff sought review of her claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, for the District's alleged gross mismanagement of her Individualized Education Program (IEP) and failure to reasonably accommodate her disabilities. Because plaintiff plausibly stated that the District acted with gross misjudgment in failing to further modify her IEP, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Because plaintiff appealed only the dismissal of her Rehabilitation Act claim, the court did not address the district court's rulings as to the other claims. View "Stewart v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against a law enforcement officer, the City of Amarillo, and other defendants, alleging that the officer had wrongfully arrested him two years earlier. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit because he failed to show good cause for the delay in perfection of service. Because the district court's warning of dismissal and grant of extensions accompanied by generous allotments of time did not influence plaintiff to effect service properly, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claim. View "Thrasher v. Amarillo Police Dept, et al" on Justia Law