This case involves a FOIA lawsuit brought by advocacy groups against ICE, DHS, and other federal agencies seeking records about the Secure Communities immigration enforcement program, particularly documents addressing whether state and local law enforcement agencies could opt out of participation. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment focused on the withholding of an October 2 Memorandum under FOIA Exemption 5, claiming deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and denied the defendants', ordering disclosure of the document. It reasoned that the Memorandum lost protection under the deliberative process privilege because it was post-decisional and had been adopted by the agency in shifting its policy position on opt-out, as evidenced by public statements and internal communications, and that attorney-client privilege did not apply due to failure to maintain confidentiality.
This case involves a class action lawsuit by individuals against the City of New York and NYPD officers, alleging that the department's stop-and-frisk practices violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments through widespread suspicionless and race-based stops. The specific ruling addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of an earlier partial summary judgment that had dismissed claims arising from plaintiff David Floyd's February 2008 stop and frisk. The court granted the motion and reinstated those claims. It reasoned that newly analyzed NYPD crime data created a genuine factual dispute over whether officers had reasonable suspicion based on a burglary pattern in the area, as the data indicated only one reported burglary nearby in the preceding two months, and this evidence was not previously available despite due diligence.
Hyunmi Son, a Korean-born former bookkeeper, sued her employer Reina Bijoux, Inc. and related defendants alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, unpaid overtime under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, and related claims under New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the § 1981 discrimination claim and the FLSA retaliation claim. The court granted the motion, holding that § 1981 prohibits only race-based discrimination and does not extend to national-origin or ethnicity claims, and that FLSA anti-retaliation protections apply only to formal complaints filed with the Department of Labor rather than internal protests about unpaid wages. The court also noted that the complaint's factual allegations centered on stereotypes about Korean employees' willingness to work without compensation, which fell outside the statute's scope.
Mark IV Industries brought an adversary proceeding against the New Mexico Environment Department seeking a declaratory judgment that its obligation to clean up groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site had been discharged in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy. NMED counterclaimed for a declaration that its demand for injunctive relief requiring continued abatement of the pollution was not a dischargeable claim, and the EPA and the current site owner intervened in support. The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to NMED, and the District Court affirmed after de novo review. The court reasoned that the state-law obligation to address ongoing or threatened migration of contaminants constituted an equitable duty to stop pollution rather than a right to payment, and therefore survived the bankruptcy discharge.
Jarvis Buckman, an African-American employee at Calyon Securities, sued the company alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL, along with breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and New York Labor Law claims related to his termination and an alleged oral promise of a seven-figure bonus. The court granted Calyon's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It found no evidence permitting an inference that Buckman's termination, which occurred as part of a reduction in force, was motivated by discrimination rather than legitimate business reasons, and held that the company's written policy making bonuses discretionary precluded enforcement of any alleged oral bonus promise. The opinion also rejected the remaining contract, fraud, and wage claims as unsupported by the record or barred by applicable legal standards.
In Floyd v. City of New York, plaintiffs brought a putative class action against the City of New York, NYPD officials, and officers, alleging a policy and practice of suspicionless and race-based stops and frisks that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Section 1983, Title VI, and related state laws. The defendants moved for summary judgment on certain claims of named plaintiffs and on claims against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Commissioner Kelly. The court addressed the claims in the context of documented racial disparities in stop rates, the dramatic increase in pedestrian stops since the mid-1990s, prior remedial measures from the Daniels settlement, and whether the City's training, supervision, and monitoring demonstrated deliberate indifference to constitutional violations. The opinion examined statistical evidence, the requirements of reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, and the standards for municipal liability under Section 1983.
