Case law

Patricia Levine v. Louis DeJoy

64 F.4th 789 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 10, 2023

Under that framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253. … See id. at 628 (“If two reasonable decisionmakers could consider the candidates’ qualification and arrive at opposite conclusions as to who is more qualified, then clearly one candidate’s qualifications are not significantly

Bailey v. Port Huron

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 1, 2007

To overcome a defendant’s claim to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the defendant violated a “constitutional right” and (2) that the right “was clearly established.” Saucier v. … There, we declined to establish a privacy right in personal information collected during an internal investigation of corrections officers accused of sexually assaulting prisoners. Id. at 451, 456–57.

Thomas O'Connor v. Township of Redford

428 F. App'x 600 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2011

Standard of Review & Qualified Immunity Standard We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. See Kindle v. City of Jeffersontown, Ky., 374 F. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Aquino v. Honda of America, Inc.

158 F. App'x 667 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 2005

Under qualified immunity law, police officers and other public officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled in certain circumstances to be shielded from lawsuits and, like an absolute immunity, this immunity … The Sixth Circuit has employed a tripartite test for qualified immunity claims: first, whether a constitutional violation has occurred; second, whether that right is so clearly established that a reasonable person would

O'Brien v. Michigan Department of Corrections

592 F. App'x 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 17, 2014

First, the district court properly concluded that O’Brien could not maintain a § 1983 action against MDOC because it was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … To make out a prima facie case under the ADA, O’Brien must establish that he has a disability; that he is otherwise qualified; and that he “is being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subjected

Kenneth Howard v. Wayne County Sheriff's Office

417 F. App'x 465 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 29, 2011

Because the district court therefore deemed the right asserted by Howard as not “clearly established,” the court found Wood and Hardie “shielded from liability by qualified immunity.” Id. … Qualified immunity from liability is available to government officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Christina Smith v. Erie County Sheriff's Dep't

603 F. App'x 414 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 2015

Qualified immunity is a shield to § 1983 liability and; when raised, the burden to show that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity shifts to a plaintiff. Chappell v. … To show that qualified immunity is not warranted, a plaintiff must show that: (1) undisputed evidence gives rise to a constitutional violation; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Federal Express Corporation v. United States Postal Service

151 F.3d 536 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 1998

-See Preferred Risk, 86 F.3d at 793-95 (explaining that the Lanham Act does not, by its own terms, control a division of the United States government which has not clearly waived sovereign immunity because the federal government … Exceptions to such waivers of immunity must satisfy stringent prerequisites: if the general authority to "sue and be sued” is to be delimited by implied exceptions, it must be clearly shown [1] that certain types of suits

Cleveland Housing Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co.

621 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 20, 2010

In Quackenbush, the Court held that an abstention- based remand order does not come within a category of remand orders that are immune from review. Id. at 712. … Yet, the potentially adverse interests represented by the City’s liens on some of the properties are clearly “ancillary” or “secondary” to the primary controversy.

Alyce Conlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship

777 F.3d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 5, 2015

Indeed, we have previously held that a Methodist hospital is “a clearly religious organization” for First Amendment purposes. Hollins, 474 F.3d at 224 . … “Pastor,” '“reverend,” “priest,” “bishop,” or “rabbi” are clearly religious leadership titles no different from “minister.”

Kuehne v. Hugan

68 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 16, 1995

In order "[t]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish: (1) an alleged violation which implicates clearly established law, and (2) facts sufficient to create … established right, then summary judgment on qualified immunity is improper."

Carlson Ex Rel. Estate of Carlson v. Fewins

465 F. App'x 526 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 7, 2012

After lengthy discovery, all defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on June 11, 2010. … ) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law.”

7 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1245, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9385 J. D. Thornton v. East Texas Motor Freight

497 F.2d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 21, 1974

The filing of a charge with EEOC also would establish a commencement date for seniority purposes. … This holding establishes that whether back pay should be awarded at all is a matter of discretion.

Denise Carver v. Mildred Dennis, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as County Court Clerk of Jackson County, Tennessee

104 F.3d 847 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 17, 1997

Dennis moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and also on the merits. Id. at 637. The district court did not address the issue of qualified immunity but granted summary judgment on the merits. … While Dennis did not expressly label her reason for discharging Carver as insubordination, Carver’s declaration of candidacy against Dennis under the circumstances of this case clearly was insubordination.

M.J. v. Akron City Sch. Dist Bd. of Educ.

1 F.4th 436 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 15, 2021

It did, however, grant her summary judgment in the end because it found she was entitled to qualified immunity. … And to establish the causation that both Acts require, “the plaintiff must establish a but-for relationship between the protested act and the individual’s disability.” Id.

United States v. Ellwest Stereo Theatres of Memphis, Inc.

927 F.2d 244 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 26, 1991

According to the Court, although elements of compulsion may clearly be present in the production of records, the more difficult issues are whether the tacit averments inherent in the act of production are “testimonial” and … In Doe , the Court declined to extend the jurisdiction of courts to include prospective grants of use immunity in the absence of a formal grant of use immunity by the Department of Justice under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003

Cabaniss v. City of Riverside

231 F. App'x 407 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 6, 2007

Once it can be shown that a defendant violated a constitutional right, the relevant question for the qualified immunity inquiry is whether that right was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). … Qualified immunity does not operate like an affirmative defense; instead, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a right was clearly established. Key v. Grayson, 179 F.3d 996, 1000 (6th Cir. 1999).

Robert H. Dorsey v. The City of Detroit

858 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 4, 1988

In the initial federal action the plaintiffs served a production request that clearly covered Sergeant Graber’s report. … Plaintiffs’ case against the city rested solely on the theory of re-spondeat superior, and the city was clearly entitled to the directed verdict it received. The judgment against Mrs.

Gabe Canary v. H. Garry Osborn, Board of Education, Portsmouth City School District, Otto F. Apel, Iii, Phyllis Fuller, Robert Stevens, Steve Sturgill, Walter R. Hickman, Jr.

211 F.3d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 3, 2000

It is the defendants' burden to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity. See Kamplain v. … CONCLUSION 49 For all of the reasons set forth above, the Board members failed to carry their burden of establishing that they were entitled to summary judgment on their claim of legislative immunity.

City of Cleveland v. Ohio

508 F.3d 827 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 21, 2007

Nonetheless, an agency’s interpretations of its own rules are entitled to deference “as long as they are reasonable, are clear, and are clearly applicable in this case.” Littriello v. … In the latter case, the Court observed that the in-state residents “have no claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.”