In a major ruling under Title VII (the primary federal employment discrimination statute), the Supreme Court holds that plaintiffs challenging a discriminatory job transfer need only prove the transfer brought about some "disadvantageous" change in an employment term and condition. This ruling rejects the test applied in the Second Circuit and elsewhere, which required that the plaintiff prove a "significant" change in the terms and conditions of employment. Instead, the plaintiff need only prove "some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment." The case is Muldrow v. Cit ..read more

As if this actually bears repeating, and it does not, probable cause is a defense to any false arrest claim, and probable cause is a low bar for the police to satisfy. This means many false arrest claims never see the light of day, even if the criminal defendant was found innocent in criminal court, and even if the charges against the criminal defendant were dropped prior to trial. This case is a good example of how all of this works. The case is Dorsey v. Gannon, a summary order issued on March 29. Plaintiff was arrested and the charges were dismissed, but that does not give plaintiff a trial ..read more

A citizen's group and three named plaintiffs sued this community in Rockland County, claiming that a new zoning law for places of religious worship violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which mandates church-state separation. The plaintiffs lose. Why? They lack standing to sue. The case is Citizens United to Protect our Neighborhoods v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, issued on April 5, eleven months after oral argument. Accommodating the Orthodox Jewish community, following contentious public hearings, the Village amended its zoning laws so that religious organizatio ..read more

This case involves a man who wants to carry a gun in the state parks of Connecticut. He says he needs the gun for self-defense. The state has not yet arrested plaintiff over this, and it does not appear he actually entered any state parks with his gun. For that reason, the case was dismissed because the district court said plaintiff lacks standing to to bring this pre-enforcement lawsuit. The Court of Appeals reverses. The case is Nastri v. Dykes, a summary order issued on March 29. Standing rules emanate from the Constitution. You need a concrete dispute before the courts can issue a ruling ..read more

The plaintiff in this case was an engineer for Metro North Railroad who was fired after his train collided with another train. At the time, plaintiff was on a "last chance waiver" that Metro North invoked at the time of his termination. Despite that alleged performance problem, plaintiff may sue for racial discrimination on a selective enforcement theory under Title VII. The case is Davis v. Metro North, a summary order issued on April 3. One way to win your discrimination claim is to show you were disciplined or even fired for an alleged infraction for which a white coworker suffered no disci ..read more

The Court of Appeals affirms a large attorneys' fees award in a wage-and-hour claim that did not produce a large damages award for the plaintiff. The case is Caltenco v. G.H. Food, a summary order issued on March 29. After a three-day bench trial, plaintiff won the case and was awarded $7,682.20. Plaintiff's counsel then moved for attorneys' fees. The district court awarded $113,225.88 in attorneys’ fees and $10,869.34 in costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) [the Fair Labor Standards Act] and N.Y. Lab. L. §§198(1-a), (1-d). Defendant appeals, claiming that's just too much money  ..read more

For now, this is the most significant employment discrimination case of the year from the Second Circuit, which clarifies what it takes for Title VII plaintiffs to win their cases. The Court holds that the district court improperly granted summary judgment for the employer where (1) the record revealed some performance deficiencies but (2) a manager who played an important role in plaintiff's termination said that women were not suited to hold her position. The case is Bart v. Golub Corp., issued on March 26. Plaintiff was a supermarket manager who worked in the deli and was admonished for fa ..read more

One of the anomalies in our constitutional system is that the courts have to solve modern-day problems by applying language that the constitutional framers adopted in 1791. In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide when the First Amendment bars a public official from censoring his private Facebook page. The Court provides an answer by creating a multi-part test drawn from state-action cases that the Court has issued over the decades. The case is Lindke v. Freed, issued by the Court on March 15. Freed was city manager for the City of Port Huron, Michigan, who created a Facebook page for him ..read more

In this excessive force case against the Suffolk County Police Department, the Court of Appeals held in 2017 that the plaintiff had enough evidence to prove that one of the officers shot and killed the decedent in violation of constitutional standards. On remand, however, rather than empanel a jury, the trial court gave the case additional thought and granted summary judgment to the officer, dismissing the case. Can the trial court do that? The case is Callahan v. Suffolk County Police Dept., issued on March 19. This case was originally filed in 2012. It arose after officer Wilson went to the ..read more

This is an unpleasant racial harassment case against Fashion Institute of Technology, where the plaintiff complained about such harassment arising from a supervisor's allegedly racially-insensitive comment toward a white student aide. Plaintiff says she suffered retaliation from that supervisor, Barton, in the form of a death threat. The Court of Appeals holds that plaintiff has a case against Barton under the New York City Human Rights Law. The case is Phillips v. FIT, a summary order issued on March 8. After Barton learned about plaintiff's complaint to the Affirmative Action Office, Barton ..read more