Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Out of time

Eighth Circuit -- Tabby Butler v. Crittenden County, Arkansas

Tabby Butler v. Crittenden County, Arkansas U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 12-1993 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro [PUBLISHED] [Murphy, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - civil rights. Since plaintiff's race and gender discrimination claims under Section 1983 are based on alleged constitutional violations, she was not required to comply with Title VII's procedural requirements, such as filing her action within 90 days of receiving a right to sue letter, in order to maintain them; while plaintiff suffered tangible job detriments in the form of a suspension and termination, she failed to show that her rejection of her supervisor's advances caused the detriments; plaintiff's allegations of different treatment were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of her sex and race; retaliation claim under Section 1981 rejected; First Amendment claim under Section 1983 rejected as the comments in question were made as part of her official duties and were not immunized under the First Amendment.

Fourth Circuit -- Henry Pashby v. Albert Delia

Challenge to state rules for Federal relief.

Not moot, as the pending changes in state procedure will still leave petitioners with an interest, and the situation is capable of repetition, despite pendite lite reversals by arbitrators.

No need to exhaust APA remedy, as courts have held the policy to violate federal law.  No need to exhaust administrative remedies generally, as the challenge is to the policy change, not the individual denial of benefits.

Class certification not reviewed, as not sufficiently intertwined.

Where a preliminary injunction preserves the status quo (bars the implementation of a policy), it is prohibitory, not mandatory.  (Slightly lower standard of review.)

Requirements for preliminary injunction met.

Remand without vacatur to allow correction of Rule 65 defects in injunction.

Henry Pashby v. Albert Delia

Second Circuit -- Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd.

To state a claim for retaliation under Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowing prohibition, there must be protected activity of which employer was aware, subsequent adverse action to which the protected activity was a contributing factor.  PF claim can then be rebutted by employer's proof that it would have happened anyway.

As, apparently, it did in this case.  Despite the ALJ applying the wrong test.

Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd.

Second Circuit -- Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland et al., v. Citigroup, Inc.,

Allegations that large buyers acted in concert to stop buying securities prior to market crash does not state a claim for violation of the Sherman Act, as it does not raise a plausible inference that discovery will reveal illegal conduct.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland et al., v. Citigroup, Inc.,
Compiled by D.E. Frydrychowski, who is, not incidentally, not giving you legal advice.

Category tags above are sporadically maintained Do not rely. Do not rely. Do not rely.

Author's SSRN page here.