Latest 2 Cases: Garza v. Escobar (Civil Rights), BNSF Railway Co. v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation ...

Drafted and Shafted: Who Should Complain About Male-Only Registration?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor comments on a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that requiring men but not women to register for the draft is constitutional under mandatory U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Specifically, Colb considers what the U.S. Supreme Court should do if it agrees to hear the case and more narrowly, whether the motives of the plaintiffs in that case bear on how the case should come out.

Read More

Garza v. Escobar

Docket: 19-40664

Opinion Date: August 28, 2020

Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment claim alleging political retaliation. Plaintiff was the Crime Victims Unit (CVU) Coordinator for the 229th Judicial District Attorney's Office and defendant was her boss, the District Attorney. As a preliminary matter, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court erred by disposing of the complaint at the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) stage. On the merits, the court held that plaintiff's employment was not shielded by the First Amendment and the district court correctly concluded that she was subject to the patronage dismissal exception to First Amendment retaliation claims. In this case, plaintiff's position as CVU Coordinator is a confidential or policymaking role, and one for which "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for effective performance." The court also held that because plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a constitutional claim, her municipal liability claim was also properly dismissed.

BNSF Railway Co. v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers

Docket: 20-10162

Opinion Date: August 28, 2020

Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

This appeal arose out of a labor dispute between a group of railroad companies and a labor organization representing the railroads' employees (SMART-TD). The railroads filed suit against SMART-TD, alleging that its refusal to bargain over crew consist violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The district court issued a permanent injunction requiring SMART-TD to begin negotiating over the crew consist proposals. The Fifth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction, holding that the district court properly classified the present dispute but that the injunction was not the proper remedy considering the type of dispute. In this case, there are two interrelated, but distinct disputes: the moratorium dispute and the crew consist dispute. The court agreed with the district court that the moratorium dispute is a minor dispute and is therefore subject to compulsory and binding arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board or before an adjustment board established by the employer and the unions representing the employees. Furthermore, the crew consist dispute is major because it involves amending the existing collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The court deferred the minor moratorium dispute to the exclusive jurisdiction of the board, allowing it to first decide whether SMART-TD is required to bargain, and potentially avoid major dispute procedures and the availability of self-help measures all together.