Latest 3 Cases: Jordan v. City of Houston (Civil Rights), Gulf Engineering Co., LLC v. The Dow Chemical Co. (Contracts), United States v. Staggers ...

Would Eliminating Qualified Immunity Substantially Deter Police Misconduct?

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the proposal that eliminating or substantially reducing the qualified immunity currently enjoyed by police officers would address racism and police brutality. Although the idea has lately garnered some bipartisan support and could potentially have some benefit, Dorf describes two reasons to be skeptical of the suggestion. He concludes that for all of its flaws, qualified immunity may actually facilitate the progressive development of constitutional rights.

Read More

Jordan v. City of Houston

Docket: 19-20294

Opinion Date: June 9, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment entered on plaintiff's claims against her employer, the City of Houston, for discrimination and creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the fourth element of her discrimination claim. In this case, plaintiff failed to show that she was similarly situated to other employees who were not members of her protected class and who were treated more favorably. The court held that plaintiff's proffered evidence regarding holdover overtime failed to show that her station-level supervisors treated her less favorably than her white, male comparators. In regard to ride-up overtime, the court held that plaintiff's allegations failed because neither of her coworkers held the same job or responsibilities or shared the same supervisor as her. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her hostile work environment claim because she failed to show that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that her colleagues' actions were severe, physically threatening, or humiliating.

Gulf Engineering Co., LLC v. The Dow Chemical Co.

Docket: 19-30395

Opinion Date: June 9, 2020

Judge: Leslie Southwick

Areas of Law: Contracts

After Dow was found liable for breaching a contract it entered with Gulf, Dow appealed the district court's failure to enter judgment on the issue of contract ambiguity and the district court's denial of Dow's motion for judgment as a matter of law on damages. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court should have granted Dow's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of ambiguity because the contract was not ambiguous. However, the district court's error in denying Dow's motion for partial summary judgment and the district court's jury instruction on ambiguity was harmless. The court did not address whether there was evidence of a contract breach because the court instead resolved the appeal on the basis that Gulf failed to support its claim of lost profits by any probative evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of Dow's motion for judgment as a matter of law on damages and rendered judgment in favor of Dow.

United States v. Staggers

Docket: 18-31213

Opinion Date: June 9, 2020

Judge: Carolyn Dineen King

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

On appeal, Defendants Staggers and Session argued that they should be resentenced because their convictions for their involvement in a drug conspiracy were not final when the First Step Act became effective. The Fifth Circuit held that the relevant provisions of the First Step Act do not apply to defendants who were sentenced before the Act's effective date. The court also held that Defendants Staggers and Morrison are not entitled to a new trial on their 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) convictions for possessing firearms as convicted felons. The court further held that Morrison's argument regarding his motion to suppress is the only single-defendant issue having any merit. Because a credibility determination was necessary, the court vacated the district court's decision to deny Morrison's motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other respects.