Tuesday, July 21, 2015
- First Circuit: In finding that no exception to Younger abstention applied to ERISA preemption claim brought by employer to stop Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination public hearing on disability discrimination claim, the court noted the potential viability of Americans with Disabilities Act claims based on differential benefits between disabilities (here, a 24-mos limit on LTD benefits for mental conditions but not physical)
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for defendant on First Amendment political affiliation employment discrimination claim, the court held, in part, that demand that plaintiff explain his absence from work and asking him for documents in the presence of his co-workers “as if he was a child” were insufficient adverse actions to deter “a reasonably hardy individual from exercising constitutional rights”
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for employer on Title VII retaliation claim, the court held, in part, that temporal proximity (2 months) between protected conduct and adverse job action (threats to fire plaintiff) was insufficient to show pretext where the timing of the threats “made sense” because they occurred when plaintiff’s sales numbers were low
- First Circuit: The court reversed summary judgment for defendant on one of plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, finding that the district court erred in finding that defendant established Mt. Healthy defense that same adverse action would have been taken had plaintiff not engaged in protected conduct
- First Circuit: The court, in part, affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent required probable cause to issue an immigration detainer
- DC Circuit: The court held that plaintiffs were “prevailing parties,” entitled to attorney’s fees under Equal Access to Justice Act although defendant voluntarily corrected constitutional infirmity after court decision because the case was one in which the “terms of a remand are such that a substantive victory will obviously follow”
