Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Post-Gazette began moving to an all-digital format, which led to the termination of two paperhandlers represented by the Union. The layoffs took place during negotiations for a successor to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which, by its terms, had ended on March 31, 2017; 24 Post-Gazette employees were covered by a provision of the expired CBA that had guaranteed those employees five shifts per week “for the balance of the Agreement, ending March 31, 2017[.]” The Union filed a charge of unfair labor practices.The parties cited Supreme Court precedent interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice if, after the expiration of a CBA, the employer alters the post-expiration status quo during negotiations for a successor CBA without first negotiating with its employees to an overall impasse and that employers are privileged to make non-bargainable entrepreneurial decisions about the scope and direction of their business without bargaining with the union--the employer need only bargain about the “effects” of the decision once made. The Third Circuit remanded. The court applied “ordinary contract principles” to the expired CBA and held that the five-shift guarantee did not become part of the post-expiration status quo. That provision makes plain the guarantee was to end when the CBA expired. Under its own theory of the case, the Post-Gazette was still precluded from implementing the layoffs unless it engaged in adequate effects bargaining. View "PG Publishing Co Inc v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Durham, a prisoner with lumbar stenosis, received epidural steroid injections for pain and was prescribed a walking cane. In 2020, Durham was sent to a quarantine unit without his cane. For 10 days, Durham repeatedly, unsuccessfully requested his cane because he was in severe pain. His requests to see a doctor and to use a shower chair were ignored. Durham fell in the shower. Durham filed suit, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA).The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Durham’s claims for money damages against the defendants in their capacity as state officials barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; Durham failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim, having failed to plausibly allege that the prison officials were “subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm”; and Durham failed to state ADA and RA claims, having failed to show that he is a qualifying individual with a disability. The Third Circuit vacated. Durham is a “qualified individual” and the provision of showers in prison is an activity that must be made accessible to people with disabilities. Durham sufficiently pleaded that the defendants had knowledge that his federally protected ADA right was substantially likely to be violated. A state program that accepts federal funds waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity to RA claims. Durham adequately alleged deliberate indifference. View "Durham v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Avila, a citizen of Honduras, experienced extreme sexual violence and attempted suicide more than once before fleeing Honduras. She became a lawful permanent resident in 2001. Between 1990-2004, she was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting; misdemeanor tampering with public records; and petty theft. In 2008, Avila re-entered the U.S. and was charged with removability, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), because her convictions were for “Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude” (CIMT). Avila failed to attend her scheduled hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. In 2015, her proceeding was reopened. Avila moved to terminate her removal proceedings, conceding that her petty theft offense was a CIMT but citing the petty offense exception, which applies to a noncitizen “who committed only one crime.” She argued that her misdemeanor shoplifting and tampering with public records convictions did not qualify as “crimes” but were merely disorderly persons offenses.An IJ determined that Avila was not eligible for cancellation of removal, finding that the disorderly persons offenses were CIMTs for immigration purposes. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit agreed that disorderly persons offenses under section 2C:20-4(a) of the New Jersey Statutes constitute convictions of crimes for immigration purposes. The court granted reconsideration of Avila’s asylum claim The BIA failed to consider whether Avila’s particular social group, “Honduran women in a domestic relationship where the male believes that women are to live under male domination,” was cognizable in light of the specific country conditions in Honduras. View "Avila v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Three men joined in a shootout, but only Rogers was convicted of murdering a bystander caught in their crossfire. At his trial, Rogers’s attorney did not object while the trial judge admonished a trial witness (Singleton) about perjury after that witness gave testimony favorable to Rogers. The attorney offered no arguments when Singleton changed his testimony and did not cross-examine Singleton about the change. The Third Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief. Counsel’s failure to object to the trial judge’s admonishment, conduct he “did not think” was problematic, fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under “Strickland” as did counsel’s later failure to cross-examine Singleton regarding his changed testimony. Counsel characterized Singleton as “a liar, trying to help his buddy out,” whose testimony would not be “determinative of the outcome of this case,” but Singleton was the only witness to ever claim Rogers shot first—the ultimate issue in the case. Had Rogers’s counsel objected to the trial judge’s admonishment of Singleton and cross-examined Singleton about his changed testimony, “a reasonable probability” exists that “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Without Singleton’s testimony against Rogers, the prosecution’s remaining evidence was negligible. View "Rogers v. Superintendent Greene SCI" on Justia Law

About 20 years ago, PIM introduced a chewy candy, watermelon-flavored, wedge-shaped Sour Jacks Wedges. Its colors match its flavor: a green layer topped by a thin white band with a larger red section. PIM advertised the candy as “The Ultimate Shape of Sour” and told consumers to “Respect the Wedge.” Years later, PIM tried to trademark the wedge shape. The Patent and Trademark Office required PIM to add colors. PIM registered the shape of a wedge, with an upper green section with white speckles, followed by a narrow middle white section, with a lower red section with white speckles. PIM later produced Sour Jacks Wedges in other flavors. Each has a color to match its flavor. The Patent Office granted PIM a supplemental registration for a tricolored wedge with unspecified colors. Haribo recently introduced its own chewy watermelon candy as an elongated watermelon wedge in red, white, and green.PIM sued for trademark and trade-dress infringement, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114(1), 1125(a)(1)(A). Haribo countered that PIM’s trade dress was functional and asked the court to cancel PIM’s trademark. The district court granted Haribo summary judgment. The Third Circuit affirmed. PIM may have created the wedge shape to distinguish its product in the market but in doing so, it made a candy reminiscent of a juicy watermelon wedge, which makes the whole trade dress functional when applied to a watermelon candy. The cancellation order should apply to the primary registration. View "Pim Brands Inc v. Haribo of America Inc." on Justia Law

Philadelphia Police obtained a search warrant for the house where Dennis resided, suspecting that it was being used for drug activity. Dennis was not home. Six officers performing surveillance were in plain clothes “to maintain an advantage.” They spotted Dennis driving near his house and decided to stop his car. The ensuing events were captured by a nearby surveillance camera. The plainclothes officers in unmarked police cars surrounded Dennis’s vehicle at an intersection. For 48 seconds, Dennis attempted to free his car, bumping into the police vehicles. When Dennis’s car appeared to have stopped, Officer Nicoletti shot Dennis, who was unarmed, three times through the driver’s window. Dennis died at the scene.In the ensuing lawsuit (42 U.S.C. 1983), the court found open questions of fact concerning excessive force claims against Philadelphia and Nicoletti, regarding whether Dennis posed a threat to the officers or public safety. The court denied Nicoletti qualified immunity, reasoning that his conduct: “sho[oting] at an unarmed driver attempting to escape at slow speed who had hit a car,” and/or “using deadly force against an individual driving a car” when “the driver did not pose a threat to the safety of the officer or others,” violated clearly established law. The Third Circuit affirmed, declining to consider Nicoletti’s factual arguments and rejecting any arguments that could be construed as a legal challenge to the holding that his conduct violated clearly established law. View "Rush v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Al-Hasani was born in Syria in 1966. He worked there as a human rights lawyer. In 2003, Al-Hasani married Khalili, who lived in Morocco. After their son was born, the Syrian government imposed a travel ban on Al-Hasani, preventing him from seeing his family. In 2005, Al-Hasani married fellow Syrian, Jouni. He did not divorce Khalili; Syrian law did not require it. Jouni gave birth to Al-Hasani’s son. In 2009, Al-Hasani was arrested for crimes including “weakening the State’s ‘prestige.’” In 2011, Al-Hasani was released but Wikileaks reported that Al-Hasani had provided human rights information to the U.S. Al-Hasani fled Syria that day, but Jouni stayed in Damascus. Al-Hasani was paroled into the United States in 2011. In 2012, he was granted permanent resident status. Al-Hasani described legal barriers to divorce in Syria and the associated stigma. He eventually divorced Khalili in New Jersey. Al-Hasani contends he never lived in a marital relationship with both women at the same time. Al-Hasani applied for naturalization, describing the circumstances of his two marriages.USCIS denied his application because polygamy is a statutory bar to a finding of "good moral character” required for naturalization, 8 U.S.C. 1427(a). The Third Circuit upheld summary judgment for the government. An individual seeking to naturalize as a U.S. citizen has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence"that he meets all of the requirements. The polygamy bar is not ambiguous as applied to Al-Hasani. View "Al-Hasani v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 to prohibit harassment and discrimination in the practice of law. Greenberg, a Pennsylvania-licensed attorney, regularly gives continuing legal education presentations about First Amendment protections for offensive speech. His presentations involve quoting offensive language from judicial opinions and discussing arguably controversial topics. Greenberg fears his speech at these presentations will be interpreted as harassment or discrimination under the Rule and alleges the Rule violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.The district court enjoined enforcement of the Rule. The Third Circuit reversed. Greenberg lacks standing to bring his challenge. Rule 8.4(g) does not arguably prohibit anything Greenberg plans to do. The Rule covers only knowing or intentional harassment or discrimination against a person. Nothing in Greenberg’s planned speeches comes close to meeting this standard. Rule 8.4(g) does not generally prohibit him from quoting offensive words or expressing controversial ideas, nor will the defendants impose discipline for his planned speech. Any chill to his speech is not objectively reasonable or cannot be fairly traced to the Rule. View "Greenberg v. Lehocky" on Justia Law

Mercado filed weekly fraudulent Pandemic Unemployment Assistance claims, collecting a total of $37,555 in benefits. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. His plea agreement endorsed the possibility of a downward adjustment (U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a)) if Mercado could “adequately demonstrate recognition and affirmative acceptance of responsibility.” At the plea hearing, Mercado apologized. The court continued his bail pending sentencing, including several conditions, requiring that Mercado refrain from using narcotic drugs or other controlled substances, submit to substance abuse testing, complete substance abuse evaluation and treatment if deemed appropriate, and get medical and psychiatric treatment as directed by pretrial services.On the day he pleaded guilty, Mercado tested positive for cocaine. Probation referred him for intensive outpatient treatment, but he never reported. Mercado subsequently admitted to using cocaine again, and two months later, refused to take a drug test. When he finally submitted to testing, he again tested positive. His PSR calculated a Guideline range of 10-16 months’ imprisonment. A two-point downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility would have produced a Guideline range of 6-12 months but the PSR recommended against it. At sentencing, Mercado again expressed remorse. The court declined the two-point adjustment, citing his ongoing drug use, and imposed a 10-month sentence. The Third Circuit affirmed. U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a) does not preclude consideration of post-plea conduct “unrelated” to the pled-out offense. The commentary to this provision lists “appropriate considerations,” several of which expressly reference post-plea conduct. View "United States v. Mercado" on Justia Law

A project labor agreement (PLA) is a collective-bargaining agreement between a project owner, contractors, and unions, setting the terms and conditions of employment for a particular construction project. The terms can include recognizing a union as the workers’ exclusive bargaining representative and paying the workers union wages—even if they are not union members. The plaintiffs claim the project labor agreements violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Sherman Act.The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims, citing lack of standing. Concreteness and particularity are two Article III standing requirements but those concrete injuries must also be actual or imminent. The contractor-plaintiffs declared they never have and never will bid on PLA-covered projects, admitting they never experienced and never will experience a compelled association or economic harm. To the extent the contractors’ declarations are a proxy for determining the actuality or imminence of harm to their employees, the contractors indicate they have not and will not bid on PLA-covered projects. The employees did not plead that they did or plan to work on PLA-covered public projects. The mere fact that the contractors claim they are “able and ready” to bid or work on PLA-covered public projects does not cure their failure to bid in the past and admitted refusal to bid. View "Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Pennsylvania v. Community College of Allegheny County" on Justia Law