Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A police dispatcher who worked for a Michigan city alleged that she and other female dispatchers were required to conduct searches of female arrestees, even when female officers were available, exposing them to health and safety risks. The department did not have a similar policy for male dispatchers. In 2020, the dispatcher and several colleagues filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination. Eleven days after filing, the dispatcher became the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, which ultimately led to her termination for violating department policy by using a case-management system for personal reasons. She later settled with the department, resulting in her reinstatement with a demotion, suspension, and loss of promotion eligibility.Following these events, the dispatcher filed a second lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, claiming that the city and its police commissioner retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights by filing the original lawsuit. She also brought a claim under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on the retaliation claim, finding no municipal liability, but denied summary judgment to the commissioner in his individual capacity, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The commissioner appealed, asserting qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the dispatcher alleged legally cognizable adverse actions and that her right to be free from retaliation for protected speech was clearly established. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the commissioner and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction over factual disputes. The court declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the state-law claims. View "DeVooght v. City of Warren" on Justia Law

The defendant was apprehended after two separate incidents in which he was found in possession of firearms and drugs. In the first incident, after a car accident, he attempted to dissuade the other driver from calling the police due to the presence of contraband in his vehicle, then fled but was quickly caught. In the second incident, a traffic stop led to the discovery of additional firearms, ammunition, and drugs. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines as twenty-two, based in part on a prior Kentucky conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which the court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this calculation at sentencing and was sentenced to 145 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Kentucky’s second-degree manslaughter qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, applying plain error review because the issue was not raised below. The court held that the Kentucky statute’s “wantonness” mens rea is functionally equivalent to “recklessness” as defined in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), and does not meet the standard for a “crime of violence,” which requires purposeful or knowing conduct. The court found that the district court’s reliance on this conviction to enhance the sentence was plain error, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Tooley" on Justia Law

A former correctional officer with the Michigan Department of Corrections was terminated after a coworker accused him of making harassing and inappropriate comments. The officer, after being served with a misconduct charge and attending a disciplinary conference with his union representative, was formally terminated in July 2019. He challenged his termination through arbitration, which concluded in December 2020 with a decision upholding his dismissal. Nearly three years later, he filed a federal lawsuit against two department officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically focusing on procedural due process.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan initially dismissed the officer’s first complaint without prejudice for lack of prosecution after he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss. When he refiled a similar complaint, the district court dismissed it again, this time on the grounds that the claim was untimely under Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions and that, except for his procedural due process claim, he had forfeited his other constitutional arguments. The court also found that his procedural due process claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the officer’s procedural due process claim accrued, at the latest, on the date of his post-termination arbitration hearing in December 2020, making his June 2024 complaint untimely. The court further held that Michigan law does not permit equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in this context and that the officer failed to plausibly allege inadequate process either before or after his termination. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Bozzo v. Nanasy" on Justia Law

A man walking along the shoulder of a Nashville interstate was approached by a state trooper, who intended to pat him down and offer a ride. During the encounter, the man produced a box cutter, failed to comply with repeated police commands, and a standoff ensued involving multiple officers from different agencies. After about thirty-five minutes, the man took two quick steps toward the officers, pulled an object from his pocket, and pointed it at them in a manner resembling a firearm. In response, nine officers fired approximately thirty-three shots, twelve of which struck and killed him. Notably, after the man had fallen to the ground and appeared incapacitated, one officer fired two additional shots.The decedent’s wife filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the involved cities and officers, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motions, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged a constitutional violation and that the right at issue was clearly established. The court also determined that video evidence did not blatantly contradict the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the officers’ conduct after the man was incapacitated.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that eight of the nine officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their initial use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. However, the court found that the officer who fired two shots after the man was incapacitated was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage, as the complaint plausibly alleged a violation of clearly established law prohibiting the use of force against a neutralized suspect. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Eastep v. City of Nashville" on Justia Law

Five University of Kentucky football players attended a fraternity party where they were subjected to racial slurs and, in some cases, physical assault by attendees. After the incident, a fraternity member called the police and accused the players of assault and burglary, claiming they brandished weapons. Detective Cory Vinlove led the investigation and, despite evidence suggesting the players were victims, allegedly fabricated information to support criminal charges against them. The university cleared the players of wrongdoing, but Vinlove proceeded with charges, and a police press release publicized the allegations. Ultimately, a grand jury declined to indict the players, but the negative publicity had already damaged their reputations and careers.The players filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against Vinlove, Sergeant Donnell Gordon, Police Chief Lawrence Weathers, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (including malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence) and various state-law claims. The district court consolidated the cases and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except a state-law malicious prosecution claim against Vinlove. The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment, as required for their federal claims, and that the state-law claims were inadequately pled. The court later dismissed the remaining state-law claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment, as they were not arrested, detained, or subject to pretrial restrictions. The court also held that the press release was absolutely privileged under Kentucky law, defeating the defamation claim, and that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that Gordon or Weathers initiated or continued the prosecution, defeating the state-law malicious prosecution claim. View "Adams v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't" on Justia Law

A prisoner at a Michigan correctional facility was involved in a physical altercation with another inmate, after which he was subdued and handcuffed by corrections officers. Two officers then escorted him through a hallway and into a prison yard. Upon entering the yard, the officers performed a takedown maneuver, throwing the prisoner to the ground and fracturing his foot. The prisoner claimed he did not resist or act aggressively before the takedown, while the officers asserted that he had lunged away, prompting their response. Surveillance footage captured much of the incident, but some key moments were obscured or unclear. The prisoner suffered significant injury as a result of the takedown.Following the incident, a prison misconduct hearing was held, and the hearing officer found the prisoner guilty of assaulting staff, relying heavily on the video evidence, which the prisoner was not permitted to view. The prisoner did not seek judicial review of this administrative finding. He then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, holding they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that the hearing officer’s factual findings should have preclusive effect and that the video evidence clearly contradicted the prisoner’s account.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the hearing officer’s findings should not have preclusive effect because the prisoner lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the facts, particularly due to his inability to access crucial evidence. The court also found that the video evidence did not so clearly contradict the prisoner’s version as to warrant summary judgment. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force, and that the officers had forfeited the “clearly established” prong of their qualified immunity defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nash v. Bryce" on Justia Law

A married couple, both employees of UT-Battelle, objected to their employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds, specifically because of their belief that the vaccines’ development involved the use of fetal cell lines from abortions, which conflicted with their Christian faith. UT-Battelle required employees seeking religious exemptions to undergo a panel interview and read a “fact sheet” presenting religious leaders’ support for vaccination. Employees granted religious accommodations were placed on unpaid leave, while those with medical accommodations were not. Mrs. Bilyeu ultimately received a medical exemption before the policy took effect and did not lose pay or work time. Mr. Bilyeu, however, was placed on unpaid leave after exhausting his vacation days, returning to work only after the policy was rescinded.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to UT-Battelle on all claims except Mrs. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, which was later settled. The court found that Mrs. Bilyeu lacked standing and that Mr. Bilyeu had not suffered a materially adverse employment action under Title VII.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to Mrs. Bilyeu, holding she lacked Article III standing because she suffered no cognizable injury after receiving her medical accommodation. For Mr. Bilyeu, the Sixth Circuit vacated the summary judgment on his disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims, instructing the district court to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which eliminated the “materially adverse” requirement for adverse employment actions under Title VII. The court reversed the summary judgment on Mr. Bilyeu’s retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the interview process could dissuade a reasonable worker from seeking a religious accommodation, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle, LLC" on Justia Law

Two African American truck drivers employed by a large transportation company in Nashville alleged that their supervisors subjected them to a racially hostile work environment. The plaintiffs claimed they were assigned longer routes and more hours than their non-African American colleagues for the same pay, denied certain benefits, and given older or more damaged trucks. They also testified that their supervisors, one of whom was also African American, repeatedly called them “monkey” and “monkey ass,” used demeaning language, and threatened or criticized them in ways not directed at white coworkers. The plaintiffs reported this conduct to company liaisons and managers, but the alleged harassment continued. One plaintiff resigned due to the conditions, while the other was terminated for alleged performance issues, which he disputed.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to the employer, finding that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence of race-based harassment to support a hostile work environment claim. The court reasoned that the terms used by the supervisors were not inherently racist, that the plaintiffs had not shown the terms were used only against African Americans, and that the plaintiffs’ comparative evidence was insufficient because it did not establish the race of the relevant comparators with the required specificity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ testimony regarding the use of “monkey” and “monkey ass” by supervisors constituted evidence of race-based harassment, given the well-established history of those terms as racial slurs against African Americans. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ comparative and other evidence was admissible and sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and the employer’s liability. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Smith v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

A sheriff’s deputy responded to a 911 call reporting a domestic dispute at a residence, with allegations that the homeowner had threatened a woman with a gun and grabbed her by the neck. Upon arrival, the deputy encountered three women and a small child outside or in the garage; none appeared injured or in distress. The homeowner stood in the garage doorway, raised his hands when ordered, and denied wrongdoing. When the deputy attempted to handcuff him, the homeowner retreated into his house, resisted being handcuffed, and a physical altercation ensued, during which the deputy punched the homeowner. The deputy ceased his efforts after being told that no gun threat had occurred.The homeowner filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging unlawful entry and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied summary judgment to the deputy on the unlawful entry and excessive force claims, finding that material factual disputes existed as to whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and whether the force used was reasonable. The deputy appealed, asserting entitlement to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the deputy lacked an objectively reasonable basis for believing exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless entry. The court further held that the right to be free from such entry and from force used to effectuate it was clearly established. Because the deputy failed to argue that his use of force was reasonable even if the entry was unlawful, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on both claims. View "Hoover v. Due" on Justia Law

A woman experiencing a mental health crisis called 911 and requested that police come to her home to shoot her. Three officers responded and found her holding a bat and a pickaxe. The officers maintained a distance of about fifteen feet and attempted to de-escalate the situation, with one officer assuring her that she would not be harmed. After several minutes, and following an interaction with the woman’s mother, one officer tased her, and another officer shot her multiple times as she moved in the direction of the officers. The woman survived but suffered severe injuries.The plaintiff, acting on the woman’s behalf, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the two officers and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and also brought a negligence claim against the municipality. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified immunity grounds, and the municipality sought judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the officers’ motion to dismiss the excessive force claims and the municipality’s motion on the negligence claim, but initially denied the municipality’s motion as to the § 1983 claim. Later, the district court granted the municipality’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the § 1983 claim as well.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that both officers violated the woman’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by tasing and shooting her under the circumstances described. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing the municipal liability claim. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claims against the officers, vacated the judgment for the municipality, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Chrestman v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County" on Justia Law