Source: https://blog.imla.org/tag/1983/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:53:06+00:00

Document:
Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority, No. 11-1234 (Jan. 6, 2014) (upholding jury’s finding of liability against water authority arising out of “interference with employee’s intimate association” due to alleged verbal and physical harassment).
Snider International Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, No. 12-2490 (Jan. 7, 2014) (holding that Town did not violate procedural or substantive due process by issuing citations by mail under Town’s speed-camera program).
Winslow v. Aroostook County, No. 13-1319 (Nov. 15, 2013) (finding Winslow is not a whistleblower under Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act).
Lynch v. City of New York, No. 12-3089 (Nov. 15, 2013) (affirming summary judgment for NYPD in Fourth-Amendment challenge to City policy requiring breathalyzer test for any officer whose firearm discharge results in death or injury; testing under the policy is a reasonable “special needs” search).
Union County v. MERSCORP, Inc., No. 13-1443 (Nov. 14, 2013) (in class action initiated by counties, determining that mortgages need not be recorded under Illinois statute).
Johnson v. Muhammed, No. 11-5115 (Nov. 15, 2013) (affirming grant of summary judgment to D.C. government because it had no authority to prevent strip searches where officer was a federal official acting under color of federal law).
Hidden Village, LLC v. City of Lakewood, No. 12-3543 (Oct. 30, 2013) (finding that claim brought by apartment-complex owner that City and officials waged racially motivated harassment campaign against its tenants may proceed to trial).
Burgess v. Fischer, No. 12-4191 (Nov. 1, 2013) (holding that summary judgment for County and officers was only proper for certain of plaintiffs’ excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference, and municipal liability claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983).
Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Inc. v. Town of Woodboro (Oct. 30, 2013) (affirming grant of summary judgment for Town in Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claim that Town’s land-use regulations prohibited plaintiffs from running year-round Bible camp on residentially zoned property). See our coverage here.
Armstrong v. Asselin, No. 10-35777 (Nov. 1, 2013) (determining that officers were entitled to qualified immunity for search arising out of officers’ review of allegedly indecent magazine).
The first significant case affecting local governments in this new Supreme Court term — Madigan v. Levin — ended poorly. The Court resolved the case with a DIG — the Court dismissed it as improvidently granted.
What went wrong? And what can we learn from it about appellate jurisdiction?
The case had all the hallmarks of a classic Supreme Court case.
The question presented was important. It asked whether when a state or local government employee alleges that his employer has discriminated against him because of his age, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) provides his exclusive remedy, or whether he may also bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because the discrimination violates the Constitution’s Equal-Protection Clause.
The question had divided the lower courts. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that its holding — that the ADEA does not prevent the employee from bringing a Section 1983 claim — created a deep circuit split.
And it had far-reaching implications. It could literally impact every state and local government.
So why would the Court, after granting cert. and hearing oral argument, suddenly change its mind and toss the case?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.