News

Case Summaries

Civil Rights

[07/23] Meza v. Livingston
In an inmate's suit against state prison officials raising claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, denial of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed for lack of jurisdiction where an appeal of the district court's alleged failure to address defendants' Eleventh Amendment immunity claims was an unreviewable interlocutory appeal.

[07/23] Magallanes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
Dismissal of an employment-discrimination suit because the parties had settled is reversed where defendant-employer did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff's attorney had in fact been authorized to enter into a settlement agreement.

[07/23] Montano v. Chicago
In a suit seeking recovery for injuries suffered by plaintiffs in confrontations with police, dismissals of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court clearly erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice as a sanction for abuse of the judicial process; 2) judgments as a matter of law for police officers on certain claims was error as there was an evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiffs; 3) summary judgment for defendants on claims that they lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for public drinking and disorderly conduct, and that they failed to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force by other officers, was proper; and 4) summary judgment for city on a liability claim under Monell was proper where plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show deliberate indifference by the police board to constitutional violations by its officers.

[07/23] Gil v. Reed
In an inmate's negligence, malpractice, and civil rights suit against prison medical staff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where the record contained sufficient evidence to show genuine issues of material fact on: 1) inmate's Eighth Amendment claim that prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs; and 2) whether defendants had met the standard of care, using the state-law standard as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[07/23] Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.

[07/23] Magallanes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
Dismissal of an employment-discrimination suit because the parties had settled is reversed where defendant-employer did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff's attorney had in fact been authorized to enter into a settlement agreement.

[07/22] Lopez v. Imperial Cty. Sheriff
In a case arising after respondent terminated appellants from their jobs as correctional sergeants, judgment remanding matter to the Employee Appeals Board is affirmed where the Board's previous tie votes regarding appellants' termination were the equivalent of a failure to act, and the trial court did not err in remanding the matters for the Board to conduct another vote.

[07/22] Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Ct
In an action involving alleged violations of laws governing rest and meal breaks on transfer from the state supreme court, the court of appeals rules that: 1) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking rest periods, they need only provide, not ensure, rest periods are taken; 2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods every four hours or major fraction thereof and they need not, where impracticable, be in the middle of each work period; 3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; 4) while employers cannot impede, discourage or dissuade employees from taking meal periods, they need only provide them and not ensure they are taken; and 5) while employers cannot coerce, require or compel employees to work off the clock, they can only be held liable for employees working off the clock if they knew or should have known they were doing so.

More...