District Court, D. Arizona — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Bonner v. Arizona Department of Corrections
District Court, D. Arizona · 1989-05-26 · cited 25×
The case involved an Arizona prison inmate who is deaf, mute, and has severe vision loss, who sued the Department of Corrections alleging that the failure to provide a qualified sign language interpreter violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim, finding that the prison's receipt of federal financial assistance triggered obligations to provide auxiliary aids across its programs under the Civil Rights Restoration Act. It also denied summary judgment on the due process claim regarding the need for an interpreter in disciplinary proceedings, holding that mandatory state regulations created a protected liberty interest in the honor dorm and fair disciplinary processes. However, the court granted summary judgment on the claim of a liberty interest in avoiding protective lockdown in the general population. The core reasoning centered on the broad application of federal funding requirements to all operations of the agency and the mandatory language in prison regulations that implicated constitutional protections.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Filary v. General American Life Insurance
District Court, D. Arizona · 1989-05-12 · cited 1×
The case involved plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for medical expenses incurred for their daughter's treatment of depression and cannabis dependence under an ERISA-governed group health insurance plan issued by the defendant. The insurance company denied coverage for "milieu therapy" and "speech therapy" charges based on policy exclusions for group therapy and speech therapy not correcting speech loss from a qualifying sickness. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the denials were reasonable interpretations of the plan terms and that equitable estoppel was unavailable under ERISA to recover benefits inconsistent with the written plan.
healthcarefederal power
Logan v. Bowen
District Court, D. Arizona · 1989-04-27
The case involves plaintiff Dale Logan seeking judicial review under the Social Security Act of the denial of disability insurance benefits, claiming he became disabled in January 1981 due to various psychological and physical ailments, though his eligibility period ended in March 1981 and he applied later. Logan moved for summary judgment to reverse the ALJ and Appeals Council decision, while the Secretary cross-moved for affirmance. The court remanded the case to the ALJ for further findings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ did not properly consider or explain the rejection of relevant lay witness testimony from someone who observed the claimant in 1981, which is required especially where proof of disability depends substantially on subjective evidence.
federal powerprocedure
Perez v. Curcio
District Court, D. Arizona · 1989-03-28 · cited 1×
The case involved a former City of Phoenix employee who sued the city and her supervisor after being demoted to probationary status, transferred, and later terminated, bringing pendent state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of contract, alongside related allegations of age discrimination and retaliation. The court granted the defendants' renewed motion for partial summary judgment on the emotional distress and good faith covenant claims but denied it on the breach of contract claim. It reasoned that the defendants' conduct did not meet Arizona's standard of being extreme and outrageous, that the plaintiff had received all accrued employment benefits under precedent such as Wagenseller, and that administrative exhaustion requirements did not bar the contract claim because the available remedies were discretionary rather than mandatory.
labor & employmenttorts & liabilitycivil rights
United Steelworkers of America v. Milstead
District Court, D. Arizona · 1989-01-27 · cited 5×
This case was a Section 1983 action brought by the United Steelworkers of America and individual plaintiffs against Arizona Department of Public Safety officers arising from a June 1984 labor strike rally and march in Clifton, Arizona, during which DPS officers used tear gas and made arrests amid confrontations with strikers. After summary judgment dismissed the union and many claims, the remaining issues at trial were excessive force from tear gassing people in a liquor store, arrests without probable cause, detention conditions, and related commander liability and qualified immunity defenses. By trial's end most parties had settled or been dismissed, and the court found that two officers violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of four remaining plaintiffs through the tear gassing and arrests, awarding compensatory damages of $1,000 each to three plaintiffs and $15,000 to one, while denying punitive damages on the ground that compensatory liability provided sufficient deterrence.
civil rightslabor & employmentcriminal law
Marsh v. Digital Equipment Corp.
District Court, D. Arizona · 1987-08-13 · cited 1×
In Marsh v. Digital Equipment Corp., plaintiff Terry Marsh, a long-term Black employee, sued his former employer for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and breach of an implied contract arising from the company's employee handbook and policies on discipline and harassment. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Marsh on the discrimination claim, awarding compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional harm plus $50,000 in punitive damages, while ruling for Digital on the contract claim. The court found that Marsh's termination for alleged sexual harassment rested on complaints that were racially motivated, that supervisors failed to investigate adequately despite knowing of possible retaliation, and that Digital showed reckless indifference to his federally protected rights by denying him specifics of the accusations or a meaningful opportunity to respond. The opinion details the company's corrective-action procedures and concludes they were not followed in a nondiscriminatory manner.
civil rightslabor & employment