Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court, entered after a jury trial, ruling in favor of Plaintiff on both her gender-based hostile work environment discrimination and retaliation claims. The court awarded Plaintiff emotional and front pay damages. Defendant, the City of Providence, appealed from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, making numerous arguments as to why the jury verdict should be set aside or, in the alternative, why the judge’s front pay award should be stricken. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant’s arguments and assignments of error were unavailing. View "Franchina v. Providence Fire Department" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ two suits against the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), holding that the EPA’s role in developing and approving several total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in Massachusetts and Rhode Island did not constitute a decision that required the EPA to send notices under 40 C.F.R. 124.52(b), a regulation promulgated under the Clean Water Act (Act).In this case, Plaintiffs argued that, in helping to develop and in approving the TDMLs at issue, the EPA made certain determinations that triggered a duty to send notices in compliance with 40 C.F.R. 124.52(b). The lower courts found that these suits had no toehold in the Act’s limited authorization of citizen suits against the EPA, which is otherwise entitled to sovereign immunity. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the EPA’s approval of the TMDLs was not a decision that an individual permit was required within the meaning of the statute; (2) the EPA’s approval of the TMDLs did not therefore trigger the notice requirement; and (3) consequently, the complaints alleged no failure by the EPA to perform a nondiscretionary duty. View "Conservation Law Foundation v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition but vacated his sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving and that the district court erred in finding that he qualified for a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The First Circuit held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applied, and the search of the vehicle Defendant was driving was reasonable; and (2) Defendant was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal. The court remanded the case for resentencing with the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition but vacated his sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving and that the district court erred in finding that he qualified for a mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The First Circuit held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applied, and the search of the vehicle Defendant was driving was reasonable; and (2) Defendant was improperly sentenced as an armed career criminal. The court remanded the case for resentencing with the ACCA enhancement. View "United States v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the fifth in a case stemming from Plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to enforce a $23 million judgment against Defendants, Defendants challenged the district court’s denial of their Rule 60 motion. Defendants, who repeatedly refused to comply with court orders, were sanctioned for contempt. In their Rule 60 motion, Defendants argued that the contempt sanctions should be vacated. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Defendants had waived their argument, that Defendants’ position was contrary to the civil rules, and that Defendants’ claim lacked substantive merit. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants waived their Rule 60 argument, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ motion for relief, and that the relief Defendants sought would be inequitable. View "AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting the Rhode Island State Board of Election's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiff's claims that his constitutional rights were violated by the manner in which his employment was brought to an end. The district court concluded that Plaintiff, a quondam employee of the Board, had not shown a deprivation of any constitutionally protected interest. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show a constitutionally protected property interest in his job, and therefore, Plaintiff's loss-of-employment claim failed; and (2) Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to make his claim that the Board stigmatized him plausible. View "Kando v. Rhode Island Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint filed by unions representing the firefighters and police officers employed by the City of Cranston. The Unions filed a complaint claiming that legislation modifying various state-run pension plans for government employees, including a plan that covered municipal firefighters and police officers, unconstitutionally repudiated contractual obligations owed to the City employees. The district court dismissed the complaint. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the complaint failed to allege that the legislation at issue unconstitutionally impaired any contractual rights of the Unions' members; (2) federal court was not the proper forum to litigate the Unions' undeveloped claims that the City was failing to abide by the terms of its ordinances or collective bargaining agreements; and (3) this lawsuit provided no opportunity to challenge the terms of a settlement by other parties in another lawsuit. View "Cranston Firefighters, IAFF v. Raimondo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for conspiring to defraud the United States and four counts of wire fraud and the sentence imposed by the district court, thus rejecting Defendant’s arguments on appeal.Defendant was convicted of knowingly procuring government contracts for his construction company. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty months’ imprisonment and entered an order of forfeiture, in the form of a money judgment, in an amount totaling more than $6.7 million, which the court determined was the amount of the proceeds of Defendant’s crimes. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) even assuming the prosecutor’s statements made during closing arguments were improper and deliberate, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that its instruction likely cured any prejudice and that any surviving prejudice did not affect the jury’s verdict; and (3) there was no error in the district court’s forfeiture order and money judgment. View "United States v. Gorski" on Justia Law

After a previous remand of this case, the First Circuit addressed whether the district court’s ruling in favor of Claimant on her claim for disability benefits based on chronic and severe pain was correct and whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to impose sanctions on one of Claimant’s attorneys.On the first appeal, the First Circuit remanded the case for additional administrative proceedings. On remand, Appellant again denied Claimant’s claim. Appellant appealed. The district court ruled in Claimant’s favor. On appeal, Appellant challenged the district court’s view of the expanded administrative record and the district court’s refusal to impose sanctions on one of Claimant’s attorneys. On cross-appeal, Claimant challenged the district court’s calculations of prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s rulings on the disability claim and sanctions; but (2) vacated the prejudgment interest award and remanded for consideration of the appropriate rate of interest. View "Gross v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of district court sentencing Defendant to a prison term of sixty-three months - the high end of the resulting guidelines sentencing range - after Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that Defendant did not qualify as a “career offender” under the sentencing guidelines and thus was not subject to the sentencing enhancement that would otherwise apply. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the government failed to identify a sufficient basis for vacating Defendant’s sentence. View "United States v. Steed" on Justia Law