Lincoln, Gehrett, King, Peck and Stone v Maketa and Presley

Maketa and Presley appealed the denial of their motions for qualified immunity. The panel reversed as to all plaintiffs. It reversed as to Peck on her First Amendment retaliation claim as the law was unclear as to whether her statements to the media were private or public as there is conflicting out of circuit precedent on whether disobeying an order to lie makes speech private. It reversed as to stone as there was no clear law that a criminal investigation is an adverse employment action under Title VII as there is no circuit case on point and other circuits are split on the issue. It finally reversed as to Lincoln, Gehrett and King as there was no clear law that being placed on paid administrative leave, being investigated internal to the sheriff’s department or being humiliated by having their guns taken and being escorted off site are adverse employment actions.

Tabura and Diaz v Kellogg USA

Tabura and Diaz appealed summary judgment to Kellogg in their failure to accommodate religious discrimination suit. The panel reversed and remanded. It rejected Tabura and Diaz’s proposed rule that an employer must completely or totally accommodate their need to not work on Saturday as Seventh Day Adventists as Title VII only requires reasonable accommodation and such an accommodation can impose costs on the employee and the cases relied upon by Tabura and Diaz involved multiple conflicts between employment and religious belief instead of the single conflict here and further rejected their argument for a per se rule that neutral polices cannot provide reasonable accommodation as it is not supported by Title VII or United States Supreme Court precedent. It held it is a jury question Kellogg’s policy of requiring employees who did not want to work on their Sabbath to use paid time off or switch with other employees was a reusable accommodation given the difficulties Tabura and Diaz experienced in arranging switches. It also held summary judgment was inappropriate on the undue hardship defense as Kellogg did not move for judgment on it and the parties did not put forth all their evidence on the issue.