Employment-law litigators are well-familiar with the provisions of Title VII and other federal employment statutes that penalize retaliation against an employee who files a lawsuit. But the D.C. Circuit reminds us today that there is another pair of federal civil rights statutes that can cover the same claim, the post-Civil War laws 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) and 1986. The court holds that the district court erred in dismissing these claims before trial.Bowie v. Maddox, No. 08-5111 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2011): The court summarized the claim:"Bowie was the Assistant Inspector General of the Investigations Division at the OIG from November 1997 until his termination in August 2002.

U.S. CONST. amend. I. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from denying individuals equal treatment under the laws. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.6 The Supremacy Clause restricts states from conflicting with federal law, Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 protects against conspiracy where two or more individuals conspire to interfere with another’s civil rights. See U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2; 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 (West); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 (West).

On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358, which was consolidated with Ashcroft v. Abbasi, No. 15-1359 and Hasty v. Abbasi, No. 15-1363, holding that detention-policy claims arising out of post-September 11 detentions could not go forward in a Bivens action seeking civil remedies, that a prisoner-abuse claim against an assistant warden must be examined under a special-factors analysis to decide whether a Bivens action for civil remedies could go forward, and that executive officials and wardens are entitled to qualified immunity for claims under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the federal government took into custody hundreds of “illegal aliens” and held them pending determination of whether they had connections to terrorism.

In Sheba Ethiopian Rest., Inc. v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., No. 21-13077, 2023 WL 3750710 (11th Cir. June 1, 2023), the plaintiff alleged that the county selectively enforced its fire and zoning codes against it and other Ethiopian restaurants and thereby engaged in race discrimination against the restaurants in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3).The plaintiff was a restaurant-turned-nightclub, licensed by DeKalb County to offer food, alcohol and live music until the early morning hours. The establishment was Black-owned and had a majority of Black customers. Beginning in 2015, a private citizen who lived near the restaurant spearheaded a campaign to "cripple" the Ethiopian restaurant community. She urged the county to take action against the restaurants with considerable effect. For example, in March 2017, the fire marshal issued a "Notice of Fire Hazard" directing the plaintiff to shut down operations until it received approval to reopen. The county revoked the plaintiff's alcohol license and business license, denied a new business license and terminated its legal nonconforming use status under the zoning code. The plaintiff appealed with mixed results. In comparison, the plaintiff alleged that the county did not shut down certain businesses that also had fire code violations or zoning nonconformities but were not Black-owne

In Cockrum v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the plaintiffs alleged that the Trump campaign and Roger Stone “entered into an agreement with other parties, including agents of Russia and WikiLeaks, to have information stolen from the DNC publicly disseminated in a strategic way that would benefit the campaign to elect Mr. Trump as President.” They sued for public disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). The Trump campaign and Stone filed virtually identical anti-SLAPP special motions to dismiss, arguing that the DC anti-SLAPP statute applies in federal court and that the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Seifert v United Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KansasSeifert sued Government, sheriff and deputy sheriff under 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985 and Kansas law alleging his commission as reserve deputy was revoked because he testified on behalf of a civil plaintiff seeking damages for excessive force against Government. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims to all defendants.

at p. 87 The Hidden Union Access and Solicitation Pitfalls Associated With Employer Corporate PACs, Bloomberg BNA Daily Labor Report, Feb. 14, 2014.8 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(3)(A).9 2 U.S.C. § 441f.10 Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2004) (rejecting civil conspiracy claim with respect to private employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for lack of state action).11 W. Va. Code § 3-9-15; see also W. Va. Code § 3-8-11 (information "containing any threat, either express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political view or actions of the workmen or employees" is punishable criminally).12 Cal. Labor Code § 1102.

3. Conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Disposition Below : 1.Summary judgment [defendant].

Timmerman sued U.S. Bank for Title VII sex, and ADEA, age discrimination. After further evidence surfaced in discovery that the plaintiff may have skimmed several hundred dollars of bank assets to her own account, the employer counterclaimed against the employee for conversion, and the employee upped the ante with a fresh round of Title VII and ADEA retaliation claims (topped with a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) conspiracy claim).The panel judges agreed, though by different routes, that the employee failed to present a genuine issue of material fact about whether the avowed reason for her termination was a pretext for discrimination.

y.CAPITAL CASES (Other Than Favorable Disposition)Cameron v. Dretke, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18357 (5th Cir 8/31/2004) Relief denied due to "overwhelming" evidence on claims including "that trial counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons; that trial counsel was rendered ineffective due to a conflict of interest; and that he was deprived of the favorable testimony of Jonathan Moore."Workman v. Summers, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19104 (6th Cir 8/31/2004) (unpublished) Relief denied on "§1983 complaint, alleging that: 1) the defendants fabricated and presented false evidence during his state clemency proceedings; 2) the Tennessee Attorney General improperly advised the TBPP concerning his clemency request while simultaneously preparing the case against commuting Workman's sentence; 3) Workman was entitled to heightened protections under the Eighth Amendment because he presented evidence of his innocence; and 4) the defendants conspired to deprive him of a fair clemency hearing in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)." (The federal district court has subesequentlygranted a Rule 60(b) stay - to be covered next edition.)