Latest 3 Cases: Freyd v. University of Oregon (Civil Rights), Alonso Rodriguez v. Garland (Immigration Law), Aquilar-Osorio v. Garland ...

The Oprah Interview as a Truth Commission

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains how Oprah’s interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might illuminate how a formal truth commission to deal with legacies of racism and colonialism might function in the British empire. Professor Wexler describes the purpose and function of state-operated truth commissions and notes the similarities and differences between those and the interview.

Read More

Freyd v. University of Oregon

Docket: 19-35428

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: Jay S. Bybee

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

Plaintiff, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, filed suit against the University, alleging claims under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, Title IX, and Oregon law. Plaintiff claims that there is a gender disparity in pay that is department wide and is caused by the University's practice of granting "retention raises" to faculty as an incentive to remain at the University when they are being courted by other academic institutions. Plaintiff also alleges that female professors at the University are less likely to engage in retention negotiations than male professors, and when they do, they are less likely to successfully obtain a raise. The district court granted summary judgment for the University on all counts. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act claim because a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff and her comparators did substantially equal work. Furthermore, plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact under Oregon Revised Statute 652.220 for the same reasons she has done so under the Equal Pay Act. The panel also concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the Title VII disparate impact claim where there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff established a prima facie case of disparate impact. However, plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment because equity raises and retention raises are not comparable and the panel could not say that plaintiff's comparators were treated "more favorably" than was plaintiff in this context. Consequently, summary judgment was also proper on plaintiff's claim under Oregon Revised Statute 659A.030. The panel also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Title IX claim and state constitutional claim.

Alonso Rodriguez v. Garland

Docket: 20-70240

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: Lawrence J. VanDyke

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings on the ground that petitioner did not demonstrate a relevant change in country conditions. Petitioner sought to reopen his 2003 removal proceedings based on a "hybrid change in personal circumstances and country conditions" since 2003, so that the agency could consider a new petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel concluded that petitioner did not present any evidence demonstrating that relevant conditions in Mexico changed since his 2003 removal order, and a change in personal circumstances alone is not sufficient to support a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The panel further concluded that, even assuming petitioner's changed personal conditions could affect his anticipated experience upon return to his country of removal, by regulation the BIA is not required to grant a motion to reopen based on changed conditions absent a change in that country's conditions. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen.

Aquilar-Osorio v. Garland

Docket: 19-73000

Opinion Date: March 15, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's denial of his motion to terminate or remand proceedings, and his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review on the basis of an evidentiary issue with respect to the CAT claim and otherwise denied the petition. The panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claim, argued for the first time before the panel, that because he never received his 2001 notice of hearing, jurisdiction never vested in the immigration court and his removal proceedings should thus be terminated. The panel explained that precedent squarely forecloses the termination argument that petitioner actually presented to the BIA. The panel also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the denial of petitioner's motion to seek cancellation of removal based on the alleged "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" his removal would cause to his mother, a legal permanent resident. The panel explained that there is nothing in the record to indicate that there was relevant evidence that the BIA failed to consider in making its hardship decision. The panel concluded that petitioner failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group and is therefore ineligible for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.1231(b)(3). In regard to the CAT claim, the panel concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish that past torture occurred with the consent or acquiescence of a public official as required by 8 C.F.R. 1208.18(a)(1). The panel remanded the CAT claim to the BIA for reconsideration in light of the fact that the IJ took judicial notice of, and relied upon, the Country Report.