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

In this equal protection case, plaintiff appealed from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the School Board. The district court rejected plaintiff's claim that the School Board's student assignment plan, formulated to address school population changes while "maintaining the district's unitary status," was impermissibly race-based and discriminatory against minority elementary, middle, and high school students zoned for East Ascension High School. At issue on appeal was whether child A had standing; prescription of plaintiff's claims based upon the 2002 feeder plan modification; and whether Option 2f violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The court held that because it remanded on other grounds, the court vacated the district court's ruling on whether plaintiff had standing to pursue claims on behalf of child A and remanded for reconsideration by the district court in the first instance as to whether to permit plaintiff to cure his defective allegations of capacity. The court also held that the district court correctly held that the 2002 feeder plan modifications claims were time-barred. The court finally held that because factual questions existed as to whether Option 2f had both a racially discriminatory motive and a disparate impact, and the district court misapprehended the significance of the evidence before it, that court erred in awarding summary judgment under a rational basis test. Accordingly, further factual development was required.

Plaintiff sued Hudspeth County and Sheriff West under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for Hudspeth County but not for West, finding that genuine disputes of material fact precluded a determination of the application of qualified immunity. In particular, the district court found genuine disputes existed as to West's knowledge of plaintiff's status as an El Paso Police Department (EPPD) officer and plaintiff's authority to operate in Hudspeth County as part of the 34th Judicial District task force. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court where West failed to show legal error in the district court's analysis.

Plaintiff brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12102, against defendant for failing to provide a reasonable employment accommodation in consideration of his diabetes. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court held that because plaintiff's diabetes treatment regiment required only modest dietary and lifestyle changes, no genuine issue existed as to whether his impairment substantially limited his eating. Therefore, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The court also held that, based upon the record evidence, no reasonable juror could conclude that defendant was unwilling to, in good faith, participate in an interactive process to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's needs. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiffs, Mr. and Ms. Jimenez, sued the County under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging constitutional violations stemming from their arrests. Ms. Jimenez claimed that, because she was arrested for a minor offense, she could be strip-searched only upon reasonable suspicion that she was concealing weapons or contraband. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Ms. Jimenez, the court entered a final judgment against the County, awarding Ms. Jimenez for past and future mental anguish, as well as punitive damages. The County appealed and a panel of the court affirmed. The court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion. Because the County had not demonstrated reversible error in the jury instructions in this case, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court reinstated Parts III, IV, and V of the panel opinion, which rejected other arguments that the County had not urged on rehearing.

Plaintiff, a group representing taxicab companies that hold only one to three permits for cabs, asserted that the city's plan to distribute new taxicab permits violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the city and plaintiff appealed. The court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating taxi companies differently based on size and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiff brought suit against various officials arising from his name not being placed on the 2010 primary election ballot in Houston. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that plaintiff's procedural due process claim was properly rejected where plaintiff had no property right to be a candidate. The court also held that plaintiff's substantive due process claim failed because there were no disputed facts regarding plaintiff's application containing an incorrect residential address where plaintiff made an oral admission that he did not live at the listed address. The court further held that plaintiff's Equal Protection claim was properly denied where the actions of the official at issue did not constitute intentional or purposeful discrimination. The court finally held that plaintiff failed to establish that Section 141.032(e) of the Texas Election Code was unconstitutional. Accordingly, because plaintiff filed his application for candidacy in the last hour of the last possible day, which limited his opportunity to refile a correct application, the court affirmed the judgment.

This case involved a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981 by a terminated employee against his former union, which represented him in a grievance hearing in connection with his termination. Plaintiff alleged that defendants discriminated against him on account of his race by failing to argue during the grievance hearing that he was being terminated for a racially discriminatory reason. The court held that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie claim for racial discrimination by the union under section 1981, and therefore the district court was correct to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Defendant, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), was found liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating plaintiff's constitutional rights by unlawfully incarcerating him for fifteen months beyond the expiration of his sentence. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, motion for a new trial. The court held that because defendant was entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable jury could have found that defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs, four former elementary-school students, sued the school district because school officials have, at various times and in various ways, prevented them from evangelizing while at school. At issue was whether the school principals violated clearly established law when they restricted plaintiffs from distributing written religious materials while at school. The court held that the principals were entitled to qualified immunity because clearly established law did not put the constitutionality of their actions beyond debate. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with an instruction to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to the principals in their individual capacities.

Plaintiff brought an age discrimination suit against her former employer and at issue, on appeal, was whether plaintiff's claim was time barred. The district court held that plaintiff did not experience an adverse employment action until she was finally terminated on January 2, 2008. In the alternative, the district court found that the 180-day limitations period should be equitably tolled because the employer's actions induced plaintiff not to file suit until after the limitations period had expired. The court held, however, that the limitations period began to run upon the unequivocal notification that her employment would ultimately be terminated, absent any later equivocation which did not occur here. Based upon this record, plaintiff's suit was time-barred. The court also held that plaintiff failed to present evidence that the employer's actions prevented or discouraged her from filing a claim of age discrimination. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in holding that plaintiff's wrongful termination claim should be equitably tolled.