• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
 

Medical whistleblower canary notes newsletter 7 monroe v pape july 2006 vol 1 issue 7

on

  • 346 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
346
Views on SlideShare
346
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Medical whistleblower canary notes newsletter 7  monroe v pape july 2006 vol 1 issue 7 Medical whistleblower canary notes newsletter 7 monroe v pape july 2006 vol 1 issue 7 Document Transcript

    • Medical WhistleblowerJuly 2006Volume 1 Issue 7 Medical Whistleblower’s Canary Notes Inside this issue: Monroe v. Pape— 2 Historical Case Civil Rights—U. S. 3 Lessons Learned from Monroe v. Pape Department of Justice Primary Authority for 4 Monroe v. Pape is an important historical legal Civil Rights Action case. There are many lessons to be learned by a careful reading of this case. Essentially, Monroe v. Pape is a case in which a black fam- ily seeks redress for a racially based violation of their Civil Rights by biased local police offi- cers. The local Chicago police officers did not have the official right to have even been in the petitioner’s home so they were acting under the “color of law” when they burst in and took the man away and held him without access to due process. Monroe v Pape shows how a case rooted in a local violation of Civil Rights can make itTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of to Federal Jurisdiction and change how we interpret the law. Although in some situations a peti-1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), tioner may perceive a strategic advantage to proceeding through the state court system, there areas amended, appears in volume 42 of other times when invoking Federal law may be advantageous. Federal district courts have origi-the United States Code, beginning at nal jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the Unitedsection 2000e. Title VII prohibits States." Cases which present federal questions are removable to the federal district courts underemployment discrimination based on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (1988 ed.), which provides that when there is a distinct claim in a complaintrace, color, religion, sex and national that presents a federal question, the defendant may remove the entire case to federal court.origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991(Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) amendsseveral sections of Title VII. Section The Ku Klux Klan Act was passed by Congress in 1871 as a result of a 600 page report delineating the102 of the CRA amends the Revised inability of state governments to cope with the Klan’s increasing racial violence. In Monroe v. PapeStatutes by adding a new section the petitioner, a Black man, charged that although there were laws in Illinois by which he could re-following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. quest redress, it was impossible for a Black man under the political pressure of Klu Klux Klan to re-1981), to provide for the recovery of ceive justice in the District courts. The case evoked the standard of a "principle of justice so rooted incompensatory and punitive damages in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The essence of the claimcases of intentional violations of Title was that the police conduct offended those requirements of decency and fairness. To show the viola-VII, the Americans with Disabilities tions of Civil Rights, the petitioners invoked primarily the Fourteenth Amendments Due ProcessAct of 1990, and section 501 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973. Clause, claiming that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without “due process of law”. They asserted that the essence of the liberty is protected both by the common law and by the American Constitution. The claim stated that the essence of the liberty was "the right to shut the door on officials of the state unless their entry is under proper authority of law".
    • Page 2 Medical Whistleblower’s Canary Notes Volume 1 Issue 7 Monroe v. Pape — Historical Case SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 365 U.S. 167 Monroe v. Pape CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 39 Argued: November 8, 1960 --- Decided: February 20, 1961 Under R.S. § 1979, derived from § 1 of the "Ku Klux Act" of April 20, 1871, petitioners (six Negro children and their parents) brought an action in a Federal District Court against the City of Chicago and 13 of its police officers for damages for violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amend- ment. They alleged that, acting "under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages" of Illinois and the City of Chicago, but without any warrant for search or arrest, the police officers broke into petitioners home in the early morning, routed them from bed, made them stand naked in the living room, and ransacked every room, emptying drawers and ripping mattress cov- ers; that the father was taken to the police station and detained on "open" charges for ten hours while he was interrogated about a two-day-old murder; that he was not taken before a magistrate, though one was accessible; that he was not permitted to call his family or attorney, and that he was subsequently released without criminal charges being preferred against him. Held: The complaint stated a cause of action against the police officers under § 1979; but the City of 18 U.S.C. § 242 -- Chicago was not liable under that section. Pp. 168-192. Deprivation of 1. Allegation of facts constituting a deprivation under color of state authority of the guaranty Rights Under against unreasonable searches and seizures, contained in the Fourth Amendment and made appli- cable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, satisfies to that ex- Color of Law tent the requirement of § 1979. Pp. 170-171. 2. In enacting § 1979, Congress intended to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional The defendant acted under rights, privileges and immunities by an officials abuse of his position. Pp. 171-187. color of law. (a) The statutory words "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any The defendant deprived the State or Territory" do not exclude acts of an official or policeman who can show no authority under victim of a right secured by state law, custom or usage to do what he did, or even who violated the state constitution and laws. the Constitution or laws of Pp. 172-187. [p168] the United States. The defendant acted willfully. (b) One of the purposes of this legislation was to afford a federal right in federal courts because, by reason of prejudice, passion, neglect, intolerance, or otherwise, state laws might not be enforced [If excessive force violation and the claims of citizens to the enjoyment of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the charged:] The defendants Fourteenth Amendment might be denied by state agencies. Pp. 174-180. actions resulted in bodily in- jury to the victim. (c) The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy, and the state remedy need not be sought and refused before the federal remedy is invoked. P. 183. [Incidents prior to September 1994]: The victim was an in- (d) Misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrong- habitant of a state or territory doer is clothed with the authority of state law is action taken "under color of" state law within the of the United States. meaning of § 1979. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299; Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91. Pp. 183-187. 3. Since § 1979 does not contain the word "willfully," as does 18 U.S.C. § 242 and § 1979 imposes civil liability, rather than criminal sanctions, actions under § 1979 can dispense with the require- ment of showing a "specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right." P. 187. 4. The City of Chicago is not liable under § 1979, because Congress did not intend to bring munici- pal corporations within the ambit of that section. Pp. 187-192.
    • Medical Whistleblower’s Canary Notes Volume 1 Issue 7 Page 3CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION—U.S. DOJOffice of the Assistant Attorney General The Office of the Assistant Attorney General establishes policyand provides executive direction and control over legislative enforcement and administrative manage-ment activities in the Division.Administrative Management Section In support of the enforcement responsibilities of the Division, the There also are divisions onAdministrative Management Section provides a diverse array of management and technical services. Housing and CivilThese services include, but are not limited to, personnel administration, budget formulation and execu- Enforcement Sectiontion, facility services, mail and file operations, and automated systems. (Vivienda y Coacción Civil)Appellate Section (Apelaciones) The Appellate Section has primary responsibility for handling civil rights & Office of Special Counselcases in the courts of appeals and, in cooperation with the Solicitor General, in the Supreme Court. for Immigration-Related Unfair EmploymentComplaint Adjudication Office The Complaint Adjudication Office reviews cases provided to it by depart- Practices & Voting Section.mental components or the EEOC alleging employment discrimination by employees of the Department ofJustice and renders a final decision for the Department.Coordination and Review Section The Coordination and Review Section exercises both programmaticand non-litigation enforcement responsibilities. Under Executive Order 12250, the Section coordinatesthe enforcement by Federal agencies of various statutes that prohibit discrimination in programs thatreceive Federal financial assistance. The Section also has authority to investigate certain complaints ofdiscrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion against certain recipients ofassistance from the Department of Justice.Criminal Section The federal criminal civil rights statutes provide for prosecutions of conspiracies tointerfere with federally protected rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, the use or threat of forceto injure or intimidate someone in their enjoyment of specific rights (such as voting, employment, educa-tion, public facilities and accommodations) and criminal housing interference.Disability Rights Section (Derechos en Razón a Discapacidad) The Disability Rights Section implementsthe Department of Justices responsibilities under titles I, II, and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 18 U.S.C. § 245 -Interference(ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment (Title I), in all activities with Federally Protectedof state and local governments (Title II), in places of public accommodation and in commercial facilities Activities(Title III). The Sections responsibilities include enforcement, technical assistance activities and certifica-tion of building codes. Enforcement responsibilities cover a broad spectrum of potential actions includ-ing investigations, informal or formal settlement agreements, consent decrees (approved by a court), and The Elements of the Crime are:litigation. To promote voluntary compliance with the ADA and to enhance enforcement efforts, the Tech-nical Assistance Program provides free information and technical assistance to businesses, state and The defendant used force or threatslocal governments, people with disabilities, and the general public. The Section also develops regulations of force.to implement Titles II and III of the ADA, including standards for accessible design, and coordinates Fed-eral enforcement of Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and other Federal statutes that pro- The defendant injured, intimidated orhibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs that receive Federal financial assistance. interfered with or attempted to injure, intimidate or interfere with the victim.Educational Opportunities Section (Oportunidades Educativas) The Educational Opportunities Section The defendant acted because of theenforces federal statutes which prohibit public school officials from engaging in discriminatory practices victims race /color /religioninvolving both elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education. /national origin and because the victim was enjoying one of the pro-Employment Litigation Section The Employment Litigation Section enforces against state and local gov- tected activities set forth in the stat-ernment employers the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal ute.Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and other federal laws The defendant acted willfully.prohibiting employment practices that discriminate on grounds of race, sex, religion, and national origin. For felony: The defendants ac-Special Litigation Section The Special Litigation Section is responsible for protecting the constitutional tions resulted in bodily injury toand federal statutory rights of persons confined in certain institutions owned or operated by state or local the victims/used force/firearm.governments. These institutions include facilities for individuals who are mentally ill and developmentallydisabled, elderly persons in nursing homes, inmates in prisons and jails and juveniles confined in deten-tion halls. The Section also investigates state and local law enforcement agencies alleged to engage in apattern or practice of violating citizens federal rights and may bring civil lawsuits to remedy suchabuses. The Section has also been charged with the civil enforcement of the Freedom of Access to ClinicEntrances Act which prohibits the use of force, threats or physical obstruction to interfere with access to
    • Medical Whistleblower The information contained through the Medical Whistle- blower Canary Notes Newsletter is provided for general information only. The information provided by the MedialDr. Janet Parker Whistleblower Canary Notes does not constitute legal orP.O. Box C professional advice nor is it conveyed or intended to be con-Lawrence, KS 66044 veyed in the course of any adviser-client discourse, but isPhone: 360-809-3058 intended to be general information with respect to commonFax: None issues. It is not offered as and does not constitute legal orE-mail: MedicalWhistleblower@gmail.com medical advice or opinion. It should not serve as a substitute for advice from an attorney, qualified medical professional, social worker, therapist or counselor familiar with the factsWe are on the Web! of your specific situation. We encourage you in due diligenceMedicalWhistleblower.googlepages.com to seek additional information and resources before making any decision. We make no warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content of this newsletter due to the constantly changing nature of the legalSupporting the Emotional Health of All Whistleblowers and medical aspects of these issues .and their Friends, Supporters and Families. 18 U.S. C. § 245 Case Primary Authority for Civil Rights Action Applying for or enjoying U.S. Const. Amend. XIV , U.S. Const. Amend. XIII, 18 U.S.C.A. § 241 (conspiracies to deprive citizens employment -- § 245(b)(2) of rights), 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), 18 U.S.C.A. § 245 (interference (C); United States v. Lane, with federally protected activities),20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1651, 1652, 1654–1656 (prohibition against busing to 883 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir. overcome racial imbalance in public schools), 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1681–1686 (prohibition against sexual1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. discrimination in education), 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701–1710, 1712–1718, 1720, 1721, 1751–1758 (equal edu- 1059 (1990). cation opportunities and transportation of public school students), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (federal ques- tion jurisdiction of federal courts), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (Tax Injunction Act), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1342 (Johnson Act), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (federal jurisdiction over civil rights actions), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction of federal courts), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443 (removal to federal court of civil rights 18 U.S.C. § 245 actions or criminal proceedings), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738 (preclusive effect in federal courts of state court Interference in judgments), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283 (Anti–Injunction Act), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (equal rights under law), Federally Protected 42 U.S.C.A. § 1982 (equal property rights of citizens), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (actions for deprivation of Activity rights under color of state law), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 (conspiracies to interfere with civil rights), Participating in any pro- 42 U.S.C.A. § 1986 (neglect to prevent conspiracy to interfere with civil rights), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 gram or activity provided (proceedings in vindication of civil rights), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(f) or administered by a state - (1) (conduct of pretrial proceedings in prisoners action under - § 245(b)(2)(B); United 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 or other statute by telephone, video confer- State v. McDermott, 822 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. Iowa ence, or other telecommunications technology), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1993) (public park); United 2000a et seq. (civil rights in public accommodations), 42 States v. White, 846 F.2d U.S.C.A. §§ 2000b et seq. (civil rights in public facilities), 42 678 (11th Cir.), cert. de- nied, 488 U.S. 984 (1988) U.S.C.A. §§ 2000c et seq. (civil rights in public education), 42 (public parade). U.S.C.A. §§ 2000d et seq. (civil rights in federally assisted pro- grams), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000h-2 (intervention by Attorney General; denial of equal protection on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 3601 et seq. (Fair Housing Act)