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

Two students at a private college in Michigan alleged that they were sexually assaulted by fellow students—one incident occurring in an on-campus dormitory and the other in an off-campus apartment. Both students reported the assaults to college officials, who initiated investigations led by outside lawyers. The students claimed that the college’s response was inadequate: one student’s assailant received no additional punishment due to a prior infraction, and the other’s assailant was disciplined but later allowed to rejoin the baseball team. Both students experienced emotional distress and academic or personal setbacks following the incidents.The students filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, asserting state-law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sex discrimination under Michigan’s civil rights statute, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. The district court granted the college’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to support any of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that Michigan law does not impose a general duty on colleges to protect students from criminal acts by third parties, absent a special relationship or foreseeability of imminent harm to identifiable individuals, neither of which was present here. The court also found that the alleged conduct by the college did not rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous” required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact based on sex under Michigan’s civil rights law. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims. View "Chen v. Hillsdale College" on Justia Law

A physician assistant employed by a Michigan hospital, later affiliated with the University of Michigan Health System, was terminated after she refused, on religious and medical grounds, to use gender identity-based pronouns or refer patients for gender reassignment procedures. The hospital had required her to complete training on serving LGBTQ+ patients, which she believed conflicted with her Christian faith and medical judgment. After seeking a religious accommodation and participating in meetings with hospital administrators, she was fired for her refusal to comply with the hospital’s requirements.She filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan against the hospital and several administrators, alleging violations of federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and Michigan law. The hospital and its administrators moved to dismiss all claims on the merits, and the district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing several of her claims to proceed. Only after this partial denial, and more than a year into the litigation, did the hospital invoke an arbitration clause from her employment agreement and move to compel arbitration. The district court granted this motion, found the arbitration clause enforceable, and dismissed the case in favor of arbitration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the hospital had forfeited its right to arbitrate by substantially litigating the case before seeking arbitration. The Sixth Circuit held that the hospital’s conduct—seeking a complete judicial victory on the merits before invoking arbitration—was inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and constituted “default” under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital" on Justia Law

A woman who had been living with a couple in Tennessee returned to their home to collect her belongings after being told she could no longer stay there. A dispute arose over the ownership of a car parked at the residence. The woman alleged that one of the residents, Matthew Howell, pointed a gun at her and refused to let her retrieve the car. She called 911, reporting the incident and stating that Howell was intoxicated and had threatened her. When police arrived, they spoke with the woman, who reiterated her allegations. Officers knocked on the door, and upon Howell opening it, they detected the smell of marijuana. The officers entered the home, arrested Howell for aggravated assault and resisting a frisk, and temporarily handcuffed his girlfriend, Alisha Brown, while conducting a protective sweep. The officers also allowed the woman to access the disputed car.Howell was indicted by a Tennessee grand jury for aggravated assault and resisting arrest. At trial, the jury convicted him of reckless aggravated assault, but the conviction was later amended to simple assault and ultimately reversed on double jeopardy grounds by an appellate court. Meanwhile, Howell and Brown filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging Fourth Amendment violations and state tort claims against the officers and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on all federal claims. It found that the officers’ warrantless entry was not clearly established as unconstitutional under existing precedent, that probable cause supported Howell’s arrest, and that Brown’s temporary detention did not violate clearly established law. The court also found no clearly established law prohibiting the officers’ actions regarding the disputed car and rejected the malicious prosecution claim. The court affirmed summary judgment for the officers and municipality. View "Howell v. McCormick" on Justia Law

A student, C.M., experienced repeated racial harassment by peers while attending public school in Michigan, including being subjected to racial slurs, threats, and physical assault. The harassment occurred during her sixth, seventh, and ninth grades, prompting her to transfer to another school district in her freshman year. C.M. and her parents alleged that the school district and its officials failed to adequately respond to her complaints, asserting violations of federal law (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause) and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and its officials. The district court found that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to C.M., the school’s responses to the reported incidents did not amount to deliberate indifference under the applicable legal standards. C.M. appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court assumed, without deciding, that deliberate indifference claims are cognizable under Title VI for student-on-student racial harassment. Applying the deliberate indifference standard, the court held that the school’s responses to each reported incident were not clearly unreasonable and reflected good faith efforts, including investigations, disciplinary actions, and proactive measures. The court concluded that C.M. failed to establish deliberate indifference, and therefore her claims under Title VI, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act could not succeed. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Malick v. Croswell-Lexington Dist. Schs." on Justia Law

Michael and Susan Mockeridge purchased a remote 40-acre property in northern Michigan, where they installed five prefabricated mini-cabins near their main cabin for family use. After neighbors became concerned that the property was being operated as a public campground, they filed complaints with local authorities. In response, three government officials—Harry Harvey, David Schmidt, and Kenneth Gibson—entered the Mockeridges’ property without a warrant or consent, inspected the mini-cabins and their surroundings, and gathered information regarding potential code violations. The officials’ entry was not via the customary driveway but through adjacent private land and dense woods, and at the time, the cabins were unoccupied.The Mockeridges subsequently received a letter from the county classifying their property as a campground and requiring licensing. After applying for permits and being told they would face penalties for prior unpermitted work, the Mockeridges filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Mockeridges on liability, denied qualified immunity to the officials, and found the only remaining issue was damages. The officials appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the officials’ warrantless entry into the curtilage of the Mockeridges’ mini-cabins for the purpose of gathering information about code compliance constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court further held that the right to be free from such a warrantless search was clearly established at the time of the officials’ conduct. The court dismissed the Mockeridges’ cross-appeal and denied as moot a motion by Alcona County. View "Mockeridge v. Harvey" on Justia Law

Dorothy Bivens worked as a territory sales representative for a company that manufactures and distributes cleaning products. During a visit to a client’s motel, the client locked the office door and propositioned her, making her uncomfortable. Bivens reported the incident to her supervisor, who reassigned the client so she would not have further contact. Around the same period, the company’s president decided to reduce staff due to cost concerns, targeting positions in low-revenue territories, including Bivens’s. She was subsequently terminated.After her termination, Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging a hostile work environment, retaliation for reporting harassment, and racial discrimination under both Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The district court denied her motion to compel production of certain documents and granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, finding insufficient evidence to support her allegations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. The appellate court held that, under Title VII, an employer can only be held liable for harassment by a non-employee (such as a client) if the employer itself intentionally caused or was substantially certain harassment would occur, rejecting the negligence standard adopted by most other circuits and the EEOC. The court found no evidence that the employer intended for Bivens to be harassed. The court also found that Bivens’s retaliation claim failed because the decisionmaker who terminated her was unaware of her complaint, and her racial discrimination claim failed due to lack of evidence that she was singled out because of her race. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Bivens v. Zep, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1994, Kenneth Hayes was murdered in Wayne County, Michigan. Larry Smith was convicted of first-degree murder and a firearm charge, largely based on the testimony of Edward Allen, a jailhouse informant who claimed Smith confessed to the crime. Smith’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and his subsequent state and federal habeas petitions were unsuccessful. Years later, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Conviction Integrity Unit investigated and found evidence suggesting Allen’s testimony may have been fabricated as part of a broader scheme involving police and prosecutors eliciting false testimony from informants. Smith’s conviction was vacated in 2021, and he was released from prison.After his release, Smith obtained compensation from the State of Michigan under the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act (WICA), settling for $850,000 and signing a release of claims against the State. He then filed a federal lawsuit against Wayne County and prosecutor Robert Donaldson, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Monell claim against the County for policies encouraging false testimony. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding Donaldson was protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity and that Smith’s settlement under WICA released his claims against Wayne County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that Donaldson was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity because his conduct—preparing a witness for trial—was within the scope of his advocacy role, not investigatory. The court also held that Smith’s acceptance of the WICA settlement released all claims against Wayne County, including federal claims, as a matter of law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to both defendants. View "Smith v. Wayne County" on Justia Law

Davariol Marquavis Taylor, an incarcerated individual, sued several members of the correctional staff at Marquette Branch Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations. Taylor claimed that a nurse administered incorrect medication, resulting in another inmate's overdose and death. He also alleged that a doctor sexually assaulted him and punched him when he resisted. Taylor sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows a litigant to avoid paying filing fees upfront due to financial constraints.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, citing the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) “three-strikes” rule, which prevents incarcerated individuals from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The district court identified four previous cases as strikes against Taylor and dismissed his suit when he did not pay the filing fee. Taylor appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Taylor had only two valid PLRA strikes, not three. The court determined that the district court's original order incorrectly counted two cases, Adler and Stump, as strikes. The court clarified that dismissals based on Eleventh Amendment immunity or improper filing under § 1983 do not count as strikes unless all claims in the complaint are dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Taylor v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Anthony McClendon, a Michigan prisoner, was recommended by prison officials to participate in a sex-offender program due to his past conviction for criminal sexual conduct. McClendon refused to participate in the program, leading to repeated denials of parole by the Michigan parole board. McClendon filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the recommendation to complete the sex-offender program and the subsequent parole denials violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed McClendon’s complaint. The court found that McClendon did not have a cognizable liberty interest in avoiding the sex-offender label or in obtaining parole under Michigan’s discretionary parole system. The court also noted that McClendon’s past conviction for a sex offense negated any liberty interest in avoiding the requirement to complete a sex-offender program as a condition of parole.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Sixth Circuit held that McClendon’s due process claim failed because he did not identify a cognizable liberty interest. The court determined that McClendon did not have a liberty interest in avoiding the sex-offender label or in obtaining parole under Michigan’s discretionary system. Additionally, the court found that McClendon’s past conviction for a sex offense meant he did not have a liberty interest in avoiding the requirement to complete a sex-offender program as a condition of parole. The court concluded that McClendon’s due process rights were not violated and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "McClendon v. Washington" on Justia Law

Matthew Warman, a former graduate student at Mount St. Joseph University (MSJU), objected to taking the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. When MSJU required all students and employees to be vaccinated, Warman applied for a religious exemption. He was allegedly detained by two MSJU Police Department officers who attempted to convince him to get vaccinated and disparaged his religious beliefs. Warman later sued MSJU, MSJPD, and several individual employees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Warman’s complaint. The court dismissed his free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims with prejudice and dismissed MSJPD from all counts with prejudice. Warman appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s free exercise, equal protection, and disability discrimination claims. However, the court found that Warman plausibly pleaded that the two officers who detained him violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Warman’s wrongful detention claim and reinstated the claim against those defendants. The court also vacated the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Warman’s state-law claims and remanded for reconsideration.In summary, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of most of Warman’s claims but reinstated his Fourth Amendment wrongful detention claim against the two officers and remanded the state-law claims for further consideration. View "Warman v. Mount St. Joseph University" on Justia Law