The following is a complete collection of past case briefs from the North Carolina Law Review Forum that provide concise summary and brief, high-level analysis of cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Christopher M. Thomas | April 2024
LGBTQ rights, particularly relating to transgender individuals, have received newfound significant attention by state legislatures. In both 2022 and 2023, state legislatures across the country introduced hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills, significantly more than in prior years. Many of these bills specifically target the trans community and are designed to limit their rights. However, in Williams v. Kincaid, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit gave individuals with gender dysphoria, many of whom are transgender, a remedy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). While several district courts had previously decided this question of whether a remedy exists, a federal appeals court had never addressed it.
In Williams, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a decision from the Eastern District of Virginia that dismissed plaintiff Kesha Williams’s ADA claim. To qualify for protection under the ADA, a plaintiff’s disability cannot fall under the statute’s exceptions, one of which is “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments.” Citing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) and other medical and scientific research, Judge Motz of the Fourth Circuit determined that there is a distinction between gender identity disorders as construed when Congress passed the ADA in 1990 and gender dysphoria.8 After citing this distinction, determining that there is a potential physical basis for gender dysphoria, and reasoning around potential constitutional issues with the statute’s exclusion, the court determined that gender dysphoria qualifies as a disability under the ADA.
WHITMIRE V. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU INSURANCE CO.
Katrina Hauprich | April 2024
When presiding over a diversity case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit must “apply the governing state law.” Importantly, North Carolina does not have a procedure through which federal courts can certify questions to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Thus, for diversity cases involving North Carolina law, federal courts cannot seek guidance from the state’s highest court regarding the appropriate application of a law or the appropriate methodology to use when interpreting a statute. Instead, federal courts must do their best to predict how the Supreme Court of North Carolina would rule if faced with the same question.
In a recent case, Whitmire v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co., the Fourth Circuit interpreted a North Carolina statute to determine whether a life insurance company had complied with the statutory notice requirement for canceling a policy. While the topic was notably “mundane,” the case provided an opportunity for the Fourth Circuit to consider the appropriate methodological approach to employ when interpreting North Carolina statutes. The divided panel produced a published opinion, concurrence, and dissent, each presenting a distinct understanding of the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s approach to statutory interpretation. Ultimately, the majority applied a purposive approach and interpreted the statute in a way that favored the position of the defendant life insurance company. In light of the holding and varied opinions, the case provides useful guidance for North Carolina practitioners faced with statutory questions of first impression in federal diversity cases.
Maggie Anne Maloney | April 2024
The North Carolina prison appeals system is “a real world ‘Catch 22,’ a dilemma from which there is no escape.” It is a system the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is finally confronting. When an incarcerated person has grievances with their prison, they must exhaust every stage in the internal appeals system before going to the courts. The 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) created strict guidelines for any incarcerated person looking to file a claim in federal court, including the exhaustion requirement. This requirement was aimed towards decreasing the amount of frivolous lawsuits filed while also improving the quality of suits brought by incarcerated people.
Accordingly, what does a court do when the internal grievance process of a prison is confusing and unclear? Further, what happens when an incarcerated person misses a crucial appeal deadline through no fault of their own? In Griffin v. Bryant, the Fourth Circuit grappled with these facts when an incarcerated person could not file a timely action because a previous claim had been erroneously left in the system. The Fourth Circuit vacated the summary judgment order and remanded it for further proceedings, acknowledging the shortcomings of North Carolina’s current internal grievance system within its prisons. However, it failed to address how the exhaustion requirement, and PLRA as a whole, exacerbates the problem for incarcerated persons.
IN RE TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
Ian Maddox | January 2023
Although Rule 10b-5, a regulation promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, provides an implied private remedy for securities fraud claims, this remedy does not follow explicitly from any legislative enactment. Instead, private 10b-5 claims are a judge-made innovation. As the Supreme Court noted in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, “[w]hen we deal with private actions under Rule 10b-5, we deal with a judicial oak which has grown from little more than a legislative acorn.” Judges have taken the liberty to mold this judicially implied private right of action, imposing various requirements throughout its jurisprudence. One such requirement is scienter, the “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.” In response to the growing volume of securities fraud claims, Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”). Among other things, the Act imposed heightened scienter requirements for bringing 10b-5 claims.
In a recent Fourth Circuit case, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, the court analyzed the updated requirements for scienter in 10b-5 actions, adopting—and adapting—much of the doctrine formulated by the Supreme Court and the PSLRA. Though the court purports to apply the same test as the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit’s application of the scienter standard seems to require a greater quantity of evidence than the standard contemplated by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit’s analysis reveals several factors of interest in determining the presence of fraudulent intent.
Ian Maddox | January 2023
While Title VII1 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 both provide causes of action for employment discrimination, their respective paths to recovery are distinct and limited. Title VII limits its antidiscrimination and antiretaliation provisions to employees and the terms and conditions of employment. Comparatively, § 1981 only provides recovery for substantial interference with the right to contract, requiring courts to locate such a contractual benefit and relationship. Accordingly, a hypothetical illustrating the weak points of each provision would involve a situation of race-based discrimination in which an individual is a quasi employee whose employer provides an ambiguous contractual benefit. In Lemon v. Myers Bigel, the Fourth Circuit confronted these facts when a law firm denied short-term leave to an equity partner. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the claim, rejecting substantial evidence of racial animus and highlighting the shortcomings of these antidiscrimination provisions.
HEYER V. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS
Pooja Ramchandani | January 2023
The ability to communicate with others is vital to one’s life fulfillment. However, before Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons (Heyer II), Deaf detainees were left with virtually no means to communicate with their fellow inmates and members of the Deaf community living outside of prison since they lacked access to videophone devices. In Heyer II, the Fourth Circuit became the first circuit court to rule that a Deaf detainee has a First Amendment right to communicate with the Deaf community outside detention walls, and thus requires access to a videophone device. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged the need for more accommodating resources for the Deaf community. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of Deaf culture and being able to communicate with the other members of the Deaf community.
In Heyer II, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Heyer first went to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, when the court held that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the BOP on Heyer’s First Amendment videophone claim. In his videophone claim, Heyer argued that, despite his confinement, he had a First Amendment “right to communicate with those outside the prison,” and given his “inability to communicate in written English,” the BOP’s refusal to provide him with a videophone device violated his First Amendment rights. However, after remand to the district court, the district court still ruled in favor of the BOP, causing Heyer to appeal once again to the Fourth Circuit. On January 13, 2021, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision once more and held that Heyer has a First Amendment right to communicate with those outside of detention walls, specifically the Deaf community, and thus required access to a videophone device.
CHAZZ ROBERTS V. GLENN INDUSTRIAL GROUP, INC.
Margaret Hay | January 2023
Slowly but surely, some U.S. courts are increasing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and eliminating stereotypes in laws based on sex and gender. A recent Fourth Circuit decision further expanded these civil rights protections in the context of employment. In May of 2021, the Fourth Circuit broadened the evidentiary routes available to plaintiffs establishing same-sex sexual harassment in the workplace in Roberts v. Glenn Industrial Group, Inc.
In Roberts, the Fourth Circuit analyzed whether the three Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. evidentiary routes for proving same-sex sexual harassment were exhaustive as the district court previously held. Before Roberts, the Fourth Circuit had not published an opinion addressing the ways a plaintiff may prove a same-sex sexual harassment claim since the Supreme Court’s Oncale decision. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court’s ruling of summary judgment in favor of the employer in Roberts’s same-sex sexual harassment claim and remanded for further proceedings. It held that plaintiffs “may prove that same-sex harassment is based on sex where the plaintiff was perceived as not conforming to traditional male stereotypes.” For support, the court relied upon the Oncale case as well as other circuit courts’ handling of same-sex sexual harassment cases.
GRIMM V. GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
Sabrina Y. Greer | January 2022
In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the Fourth Circuit was tasked with deciding whether a school violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX when it excluded a student from using the boys bathroom and refused to amend his school records. Grimm is the result of a long battle in the courts and a number of changed administrative policies, which can be primarily attributed to a change in president and agency guidance. The Fourth Circuit found in favor of Gavin Grimm, a transgender student, under an Obama-era policy governing Title IX protections for transgender students. But the election of Donald Trump removed such protections. This forced a pending hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court to be vacated, and the case was remanded for reconsideration “in light of the shift in agency perspective.” On remand, due to recent case law, including the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Fourth Circuit ruled again in favor of the student. The Fourth Circuit found that the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. Grimm is an example of why we need fixed policies and legislation protecting transgender students from the rapid changes of administrative law and the whims of a prejudiced president.
George Dylan Boan | January 2022
One topic sure to inflame the emotions of any American and inspire a wide range of opinions is what to do when an offender is convicted on child pornography charges. Not only must the question of punishment be addressed, but also, the need for rehabilitation to permit reentry into society. Further, what do we do when a sex offender repeatedly violates the conditions of their release? In the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Ellis, the court addressed just this question. The court ultimately vacated the special conditions of supervised release imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on such an offender. The Fourth Circuit found the court imposed conditions banning access to pornography and the internet to be overly restrictive and not “reasonably related” to Ellis’s prior criminal convictions, release violations, or ongoing treatment.
N.C. STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP V. BERGER
Sarah A. Benecky | January 2021
North Carolina is no stranger to partisan fights and fraught relations between its legislative and executive branches. The 2016 election of Democratic Governor Roy Cooper only added fuel to the fire, prompting an ongoing battle with the North Carolina General Assembly, where Republicans have controlled both houses since 2010. Recently, in North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. Berger, the Fourth Circuit vacated the Middle District of North Carolina’s order denying North Carolina General Assembly leaders a renewed motion to intervene in an action brought by the NAACP challenging Senate Bill 824 (“S.B. 824”), a recently enacted voter ID law.
Core to the majority’s reasoning was Section 1-72.2 of the North Carolina General Statutes, a statute “express[ing] the public policy of North Carolina that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House represent the State in defense of its statutes.” Writing for the majority, Judge Quattlebaum found that the district court did not sufficiently consider Section 1-72.2 in its analysis of whether to permit intervention. The majority also found that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard in its Rule 24 analysis, and held that the legislators faced only a minimal burden in showing inadequacy of representation by the Attorney General. Notably, the majority declined to follow the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Kaul, a virtually identical case in the context of an antiabortion law. In doing so, the majority disregarded the Fourth Circuit’s own precedent and invited federal courts to become referees of partisan battles in which both parties ultimately share the same objective.
Laura E. Johnson | January 2021
The Fourth Circuit’s en banc review in United States v. Curry, which produced a 9–6 split, two forceful dissents, and four concurrences largely attacking those dissents, serves as a reminder that the majority’s analysis not only decides the outcome of the case at hand, but has the ability to draw attention to deep-rooted issues that divide our society. In Curry, the Fourth Circuit was faced with whether to expand the exigent circumstances doctrine under the Fourth Amendment to justify the suspicionless seizure of Billy Curry, Jr., the defendant. The majority declined to do so by outlining a new rule: officers may conduct suspicionless seizures only when they have specific information regarding a known crime in a controlled geographic area.
Ryan Collins | May 2020
The day before Phyllis Randall assumed her duties as the elected Chair of the Board of Supervisors for Loudoun County, Virginia on January 1, 2016, she took what was is an increasingly common first step for public officials: she created a Facebook page. No doubt aware of the power of social media as a tool for civic engagement, Randall decided to use her page, which she characterized as her “county Facebook page,” as a platform both for keeping the public informed on county affairs and also for soliciting input from her constituents. Little did Randall know that an impulsive decision to delete some comments left on the page by a constituent (which she viewed as “slanderous”) would lead to a federal lawsuit and a foray into the growing thicket of government, social media, and the First Amendment.
DOMINION ENERGY, INC. V. CITY OF WARREN FIRE & POLICE RET. SYS.
Will Bowers | May 2020
After Dominion Energy, Inc. agreed to acquire SCANA Corporation, disgruntled shareholders brought two class actions against the parties involved, alleging SCANA’s Board of Directors breached a fiduciary duty and that Dominion aided and abetted that breach. Although the district court remanded the class actions to state court after Dominion’s motion to remove them to federal court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit allowed Dominion to appeal those remand orders and held that the aiding and abetting claims did not satisfy one of the three exceptions to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“the Fairness Act”). Accordingly, the appeals court reversed the district courts’ decisions and allowed the removal of the class actions into federal court, granting Dominion’s motions.