Archives

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on October 6, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

Raspardo v. Carlone, No. 12-1686 (Oct. 6, 2014): In 1983 Title VII employment discrimination case brought by female police officers alleging hostile work environment and disparate treatment, the court affirmed denial of qualified immunity for one officer on hostile-work-environment claim, and reversed denial of qualified immunity for other officers.
Sunrise Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains, No. 13-2911 (Oct. 2, 2014): In case in which City denied request for facility to provide care for those recovering from alcohol and drug abuse because facility did not satisfy zoning requirements, the court affirmed district court’s determination that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over ADA suit. Suit was not ripe because applicant had not sought variance or appealed the zoning decision.
Grogan v. Blooming Grove Volunteer Ambulance Corps, No. 13-656 (Sept. 29, 2014): The court affirmed dismissal of 1983 action after it determined that private emergency medical care and general ambulance services contracted for by municipality do not constitute “state action.”

Update on Pacific Shores v. Newport Beach

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on November 8, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

For those following this case on zoning limitations governing sober living facilities, the Ninth Circuit has issued a sua sponte call for briefing on the issue of whether en banc review should be granted. More news to follow….

Regulating Adult-Oriented Businesses: Demonstrating Your Regulations Are Effective.

Posted in Case Notes on August 19, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

Build a record to justify your regulations, but resist claims that the evidence has to be beyond dispute.

Crime. Disease. Decreased property values.

Adult-oriented businesses are disrupting your community.

But you have a plan.

You have fashioned a licensing scheme that prohibits nudity and the sale of alcohol at these establishments.

You know that courts have allowed zoning regulations that address the “secondary effects” of these businesses. You also know that regulating these businesses can violate the First Amendment.

But how closely will a court examine whether your regulations effectively eliminate these adverse effects?

Continue reading →