Tenth Circuit Tag

Supreme Court Rejects Judge Gorsuch’s View of Special Education Law

Posted 27 Mar 2017 in Case Notes, Commentary, Monday Morning Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District was bad timing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. The Supreme Court held unanimously that public school districts must offer students with disabilities an individual education plan (IEP) “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The Court rejected the Tenth Circuit’s holding that an IEP must merely confer “some educational benefit” that is “more than de minimis.” This ruling came down while Judge Gorsuch was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Gorsuch was the author of a 2008 opinion

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Internet Sales Tax Case

Posted 13 Dec 2016 in Case Notes, IMLA Briefs

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving the question of whether a Colorado law requiring remote sellers to inform Colorado purchasers annually of their purchases and send the same information to the Colorado Department of Revenue is unconstitutional. As is always the case, the Supreme Court gave no reason for denying the petition. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, decided in 1992, the Supreme Court held that states cannot require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales tax. In 2010 the Colorado legislature passed the law described above to improve sales tax collection. The Direct Marketing Association sued Colorado claiming the law unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce and is unconstitutional under Quill.

SLLC Files Tenth Circuit Amicus Brief Supporting Colorado’s Effort to Collect Use Tax on Remote Sales

Posted 21 May 2015 in Case Notes, IMLA Briefs

If you know anything about the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) you know that it files amicus briefs in U.S. Supreme Court cases affecting state and local government. The SLLC made an exception and filed an amicus brief in a federal circuit court of appeals case because of the importance of the issue to SLLC members. In Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl the Tenth Circuit will decide whether Colorado’s law requiring remote sellers to inform Colorado purchasers annually of their purchases and send the same information to the Colorado Department of Revenue is unconstitutional. At least three other states have similar notice and reporting requirements (Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Vermont).

Constructive Discharge: When You Quit or are Last Treated Badly?

Posted 12 May 2015 in Commentary

If not all Supreme Court cases are equal, all employment law Supreme Court really cases aren’t equal. Green v. Donahoe isn’t Ledbetter v. Goodyear, holding employees have 180 days from a discriminatory pay decision to bring a claim, which Congress promptly overturned. Most employers won’t care how this case is decided. So, why did the Court take it? Likely to resolve a circuit split that has been brewing for the last 25 years. In Green v. Donahoe the Supreme Court will decide for purposes of federal employment discrimination law when the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run. The Court’s choices are: when an employee resigns or the employer's last allegedly discriminatory act. Often these two events occur at the same time, but not in this case. This case will apply to constructive discharge claims brought against state and local government employers under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, all of which must first be brought to the attention of the EEOC before a court.

Who Asks Who Tells: IMLA Writes SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Religious Accommodation Case

Posted 09 Feb 2015 in Commentary, IMLA Briefs

HR 101: Don’t ask prospective employees about protected characteristics such as age, sex, race, national origin, religion, etc. No, no says the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC), if an employer thinks an employee may need a religious accommodation an employer must ask about religion. Is the EEOC’s (new) view correct? That is what the Supreme Court will decide in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. Who must ask about the need for a religious accommodation—the employer or the employee/applicant? The State and Local Legal Center’s (SLLC) amicus brief, which IMLA wrote, argues the employee/applicant should ask. Abercrombie & Fitch’s “Look Policy” requires sale-floor employees to wear clothing consistent with what Abercrombie sells in it stores and prohibits headwear. Samantha Elauf wore a head scarf to an interview at Abercrombie but didn’t ask for a religious accommodation. Her interviewer assumed but did not ask if she were Muslim and wore the headscarf for religious reasons. Ms. Elauf was ultimately not hired because of the headscarf. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Abercrombie alleging it violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Ms. Elauf’s religious beliefs. At trial, EEOC’s expert testified that some women wear headscarves for cultural rather than religious reasons.

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 21 Dec 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments: Fourth Circuit Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, No. 13-2160 (Dec. 17, 2014): In appeal of district court order finding that County prayers violated Establishment Clause, the court found that County's appeal was untimely. Fifth Circuit Bell v. Itawamba County Sch. Bd., No. 12-60264 (Dec. 12, 2014): The court ruled that school board violated student's freedom of speech by disciplining him for a song that he wrote off campus, that he posted to the Internet from his home computer, and that...

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 14 Dec 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Catching up on recent published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

S. Kingstown Sch. Cmte v. Joanna S., No. 14-1177 (Dec. 9, 2014): The court ruled in Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA") case that settlement agreement relieved school committee of obligation to perform or fund evaluations, and remanded to determine whether Joanna S. is entitled to attorney's fees.

Second Circuit

Hardison v. Bd. of Ed. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., No. 13-1594 (Dec. 3, 2014): The court ruled, in IDEA case, that district court should have shown greater deference to state review officer's determination to deny reimbursement.

Fourth Circuit

E.L. v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Bd. of Ed., No. 13-2330 (Dec. 3, 2014): The court found that student did not exhaust her administrative remedies and that school board did not violate the IDEA; student received therapy mandated by her IEP.
AGI Assoc., LLC v. City of Hickory, No. 13-2097 (Dec. 11, 2014): The court found that under North Carolina law, governmental immunity from equitable claims is waived when a county or municipality acts in a proprietary, not governmental, capacity.

Fifth Circuit

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 10 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are the last two weeks' published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

Golodner v. Berliner, No. 12-1173 (Oct. 27, 2014): In 1983 action alleging that City and City officials retaliated against Golodner for exercising his First-Amendment rights, the court affirmed that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
Berman v. City of New York, No. 13-598 (Oct. 29, 2014): The court certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals in suit challenging City law that regulates debt-collection agencies.
Harris v. O'Hare, No. 12-4350 (Oct. 30, 2014): In suit claiming that officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered yard and shot and killed family dog, the court found that there was insufficient evidence of exigent circumstances to permit warrantless search.
Floyd v. City of New York, No. 13-3088 (Oct. 31, 2014): The court ruled that public-sector unions may not intervene into litigation concerning City's "stop-and-frisk" policy where the parties to the ligitation have agreed to settlement.

Sixth Circuit

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted 28 Oct 2014 in Monday Morning Review

Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:

Third Circuit

Thorpe v. Borough ofJim Thorpe, No. 13-2446 (Oct. 23, 2014): The court reversed district court's conclusion that Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires the Borough to disinter Jim Thorpe. In the court's view, "Congress could not have intended th[is] kind of patently absurd result."

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. City of Greensboro, No. 13-1820 (Oct. 22, 2014): In suit brought by police officers and firefighters claiming that the City failed to pay certain wages and benefits, the court affirmed district court's denial of the City's motion to dismiss because governmental immunity does not protect the City from breach of contract and estoppel claims.

What’s Next for Same-Sex Marriage?

Posted 09 Oct 2014 in Commentary

For the six reasons Lyle Denniston describes on SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday that it would not hear any of the seven petitions striking down same-sex marriage bans was stunning.

Even though there was no circuit split, conventional wisdom indicated the Court would decide the issue because of its importance and because both sides asked the Court for review. Amy Howe also of SCOTUSblog and Scott Michelman writing on SCOTUSblog speculate as to the why the Court’s liberals and conservatives may have decided not to get involved in the issue now. In short, the liberals had nothing to lose by waiting, and both side face uncertainty about Justice Kennedy’s position on the issue. To understand where were are today with same-sex marriage a timetable is helpful.

On Sunday, 19 states recognized same-sex marriage.
On Monday, 11 more states were added from the Fourth (Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) Seventh (Wisconsin and Indiana) and Tenth Circuits (Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming).
On Tuesday 5 more states were added when the Ninth Circuit (Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, and Montana) struck down the Idaho and Nevada same-sex marriage bans. (Implementation of this decision is still being worked out).

Technically,

Tenth Circuit Tag

Important Links