Second Circuit rewrites the rules for associational standing in Section 1983 cases

The Second Circuit has overruled a 1973 precedent that barred organizations from bringing § 1983 lawsuits on behalf of their members. This ruling makes it easier for organizations to sue on behalf of their members.

The case is Defending Education v. Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, issued on September 15. Defending Education challenged student-speech policies adopted by the Croton-Harmon School District in Westchester County. The organization represented three parents whose children attend Croton-Harmon schools. The parents alleged that the district's policies concerning discrimination, harassment, bullying, gender identity, and student speech violated the First Amendment and chilled their children's speech. After the plaintiff organization lost this appeal last year, on a petition for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Parker and Nardini), holds that organizations may assert associational standing under the three-part test from Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977). 

What is standing? That legal principle gives you the right to bring a lawsuit. Most litigants have standing: something bad happened to me, and I am bringing a lawsuit. Some organizations can also sue on behalf of their members. That's associational standing, and it is much more complicated.  

In Aguayo v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090 (2d Cir. 1973), the Second Circuit more than 50 years ago held that organizations could not sue under § 1983 to vindicate the rights of their members. The trial court in this case therefore dismissed the case for lack of standing. In April 2025, the Second Circuit initially affirmed that dismissal because Aguayo was controlling Circuit precedent.

Defending Education then sought reconsideration, asking the Second Circuit to overrule Aguayo. The Court granted the motion, rendering the first appellate ruling in this case a nullity. The Court noted that when Aguayo was decided, the Second Circuit was the first federal appellate court to hold that membership organizations could not bring § 1983 claims on behalf of their members. More than fifty years later, every other federal circuit that had addressed the question had reached the opposite conclusion. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, had repeatedly recognized associational standing, including in cases involving § 1983 claims.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), and Hunt are implicated here. Under Hunt, an organization can sue on behalf of its members when three requirements are met: (1) the members would have standing to sue individually; (2) the interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose; and (3) neither the claim nor the requested relief requires individual members to participate in the lawsuit.

The Second Circuit holds that Aguayo cannot be reconciled with this Supreme Court precedent. It also points to the Supreme Court's recent affirmative action decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), which applied the Hunt framework to an association asserting constitutional claims under § 1983.

The Court Appeals thus overrules Aguayo's associational-standing rule, as well as later Second Circuit decisions that relied on that rule. What it means is that organizations are no longer categorically barred from bringing § 1983 cases on behalf of their members in the Second Circuit. The case returns to the trial court to determine whether the organization satisfies Hunt's requirements. The Second Circuit expressly to decide whether the organization would ultimately satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction.

Second Circuit says border agents can search cellphones without suspicion

The Second Circuit has held that federal agents can search your cellphone when you enter the United States without a warrant or reasonable suspicion..

The case is United States v.Alisigwe, issued on September 17. Under this ruling, the government may conduct a manual search of a traveler’s cellphone at the international border without any individualized suspicion. That is what happened here.

Alisigwe was a lawful permanent resident whom authorities suspected of using fraudulent identification documents to open bank accounts. In 2019, when Alisigwe returned to the United States through Idlewild Airport, Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection officers stopped him for an inspection. An officer scrolled through Alisigwe's phone, and photographed material in his photo gallery, which contained names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, bank-account information and addresses belonging to other people. Two years later, officers again stopped Alisigwe at the airport and searched his phone. This time they photographed a Whats App message concerning one of the people whose identity had allegedly been stolen. When Alisigwe moved to suppress the cellphone evidence, the district court rejected the motion, reasoning that cellphone searches at the border required reasonable suspicion but that the officers had reasonable suspicion in this case.

The Second Circuit (Menashi, Lee [concurring] and Gonzalez [D.J.]) agreed that the evidence could be used, but for a different reason. The majority invokes the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment. Ordinarily, a warrantless search requires an exception to the warrant requirement. But as for border searches, the Supreme Court holds that the government's interest in determining who and what enters the country permits routine searches without probable cause, a warrant, or reasonable suspicion.

The Second Circuit had previously distinguished between routine and non-routine border searches. Searches of luggage and other belongings generally are routine; highly intrusive searches of the person, such as strip searches and body-cavity searches, can require reasonable suspicion. The majority holds that a cellphone falls on the “property” side of the equation. The court recognizes that cellphones contain much personal information. But it reasoned that the government's border interest is not limited to physical contraband. Digital information can constitute contraband, and information on a cellphone may help determine whether a person is entitled to enter the country.

Judge Lee concurred in the judgment. She agreed that the particular searches in this case did not require a warrant or probable cause. But she disagreed with the majority's broader holding that all international travelers' cellphones may be searched without any individualized suspicion. She notes that a cellphone is not a suitcase and can contain medical information, financial records, personal messages, internet searches, location information and other highly private material. Judge Lee questioned whether the traditional rationale for border searches should extend to this comprehensive modern device. She also noted that Alisigwe did not challenge the district court's finding that reasonable suspicion actually existed. As Judge Lee sees it, the court did not need to decide whether suspicionless cellphone searches are constitutional.

2d Circuit interprets the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (Newton v. LVMH Part III)

The Court of Appeals has issued an important ruling on the scope of the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA), holding that a high-profile sexual harassment plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration on her sexual harassment and retaliation claims even if some of the hostile conduct took place after the EFAA took effect in March 2022.

The case is Newton v. LVMH, issued on September 21. Plaintiff -- whose testimony before Congress helped lead to the EFAA's enactment -- asserts that she endured sexual harassment prior to March 2022, and that following enactment of the EFAA, the sex discrimination and retaliation continued through her termination in December 2022. Under the EFAA, plaintiff can avoid arbitration on all her claims, including those that accrued prior to March 2022, if they are part of a continuing violation, an equitable principle that allows you to sue over actions that would be otherwise time-barred. 

"However, to trigger the doctrine, the timely and untimely acts must be 'sufficiently related' such that they constitute part of the same 'unlawful employment practice.'” The Court of Appeals (Bianco, Menashi and Brindisi [D.J.]) cites McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70, 75, 77 (2d Cir. 2010), for this proposition. Until now, McGullam was the leading case on this issue. The Court adds:

To determine whether the requisite relationship between timely and untimely acts has been shown, we consider a variety of factors, including “the commonality of the environment in which the incidents took place (and whether a change in environment is due to intervening action by the employer), the nature of the incidents, and the temporal discontinuity between the incidents.” 

The continuing violation doctrine does not apply here because the pre- and post-EFAA acts of retaliation "are not sufficiently related such that they are 'part of the same course of discriminatory conduct," as "the 'who' and the 'how' of the alleged harassment and retaliation differed between the two relevant time periods." 

Prior to the EFAA's enactment, plaintiff primarily suffered discrimination from colleagues Doran (sexual harassment) and Firestone (who perpetrated the retaliation). The post EFAA retaliation was perpetrated by her supervisor, Pratt. Moreover, pre-EFAA, the Title VII violations involved pure sexual harassment. The post-EFAA violations involved retaliation that differed materially from the pre-EFAA retaliation. Pre-EFAA, plaintiff alleged, the company undertook a sham investigation into her sexual harassment complaint, giving her bad performance reviews, and other acts of workplace hostility. Post-EFAA, she alleges that LVMH engaged in a different pattern of retaliation, including requiring her to get pre-approval before she spoke publicly at panels or conferences, micromanaging her work matters, ignoring her and terminating her employment. There is not enough overlap between -pre- and post-EFAA allegations of retaliation to trigger the continuing violations rule. 

Plaintiff successfully pleads retaliation claim (Newton v. LVMH Part II)

The Court of Appeals has provided further guidance on how to determine if a Title VII retaliation plaintiff pleads a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse action, such as termination. We do not just look at the timing of the adverse action but its context.

The case is Newton v. LVMH, issued on September 21. I covered the protected activity holding at this link. The protected activity took place in August 2022, when plaintiff declined to meet with her supervisor to discuss settling her pending claims. Plaintiff was fired in December 2022. That four-month gap is enough to plead a prima facie case. The Second Circuit has issued numerous rulings stating that a certain time period is enough to assert causation. Here is how the Court (Bianco, Menashi and Brindisi [D.J.]) frames the inquiry in this case:

the time between the refusal and the termination is as much as four months. We have previously held that similar amounts of time are sufficient to suggest causation. See, e.g., Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e have previously held that five months is not too long to find the causal relationship.”); Abrams v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 764 F.3d 244, 254 (2d Cir. 2014) (five months); Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Co-Op Extension of Schenectady Cnty., 252 F.3d 545, 555 (2d Cir. 2001) (four months). 

Importantly, “[w]here temporal proximity is not the only evidence that bears on a causal connection, we have recognized that the lapse in time between the protected activity and adverse action can be longer.” Banks v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 81 F.4th 242, 277-29 78 (2d Cir. 2023). That additional evidence of causation can arise in the context of an ongoing discrimination lawsuit brought by the employee. . . . Moreover, in looking at “the facts as a whole,” we can also consider intervening patterns of “antagonism” or a “drumbeat of retaliatory animus” that do not themselves necessarily rise to a level of an adverse employment action.

Plaintiff does not merely rely on temporal proximity but the pattern of antagonism that followed the filing of her lawsuit, including her humiliating, public termination. Ultimately, "the combination of temporal proximity and these antagonistic actions lead us to conclude that Newton has plausibly alleged causation." 

Plaintiff engaged in protected activity in declining to meet with supervisor about settling her pending sexual harassment claims (Newton v. LVMH Part I)

The Court of Appeals has reinstated a Title VII lawsuit that alleged that management retaliated against a lawyer for a prominent international firm after she filed a sex discrimination lawsuit and later on declined to discuss settlement with her superior. The Court further holds that plaintiff has sufficiently plead that her protected activity in declining to discuss settlement led to a series of adverse actions, including her termination.

The case is Newton v. LVMH, issued on September 21. This blog post will cover whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity. 

Plaintiff sued LVMH in 2019 in state court and again in December 2023 in federal court, alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of state, federal, and city law. (The state court action was sent to arbitration and the Title VII action asserted claims that plaintiff accrued after the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA), which bars arbitration in sexual harassment cases, took effect.

In August 2022, following what plaintiff claimed was a series of retaliatory acts, including exclusion from a company retreat, disdainful looks at a company retreat, being berated over her job performance, and a time-consuming assignment given while she was on vacation, her boss, Pratt, asked if plaintiff would consider settling her claims. Plaintiff declined the invitation. Afterward, from August 2022 through December 2022, she suffered additional adverse actions, including a requirement that she get pre-approval before she agreed to speak at any panels or conferences (plaintiff was a high-profile public speaker about sexual harassment), exclusion from important communications, being ignored at weekly one-on-one meetings with Pratt, exclusion from an employee's farewell dinner, termination in a publicly humiliating manner, and denied her personal effects, a bonus, and a matching charitable contribution.

The Court of Appeals (Bianco, Menashi and Brindisi (D.J.]) holds that plaintiff engaged in protected activity in refusing to meet with her boss to discuss settlement. This is a new holding for the Second Circuit, which reasons:

If initiating a claim constitutes an assertion that the plaintiff was wronged, refusing to end a pursuit of that same claim with a settlement can—depending on the context—constitute a continuation of the same assertion. The relevant question is whether the employer understood or could reasonably have understood that the plaintiff’s refusal was an assertion of her continued opposition to the employer’s unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII. If so, the refusal is a protected activity.

To trigger the "opposition clause" under Title VII, "such opposition can potentially include not only the filing of a discrimination lawsuit itself, but also other statements made, activities pursued, or positions taken by a plaintiff during the course of that discrimination lawsuit—such as a deposition, settlement discussions, a trial, or an appeal." 

By August 2022, when plaintiff refused to meet with Pratt, she had been vigorously pursuing her legal claims against the company and spoke out before Congress in support of the EFAA. In this context,  "Newton has plausibly alleged that when she refused to meet with Pratt to discuss settlement, he could have reasonably understood that refusal as communicating her continued belief that she had been wronged by [alleged sexual harasser] Doran and LVMH’s discriminatory conduct, and that she wanted acknowledgement and legal redress for those wrongs. That constitutes opposition and, thus, protected activity." The Court states in a footnote that not every refusal to settle constitutes protected activity. "What an employer can reasonably understand such a refusal to communicate depends on the full context of the refusal."

Importantly, the Court further holds it was not fatal that plaintiff did not affirmatively tell Pratt that her refusal to discuss settlement was a means to continue protesting her discrimination. Plaintiff asserts that objection was implicit. The Court reasons:

the Supreme Court has recognized that conduct or communications that reveal opposition, even implicitly, can constitute protected activity. See Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, 555 U.S. 271, 277 (2009) (“Countless people were known to ‘oppose’ slavery before Emancipation, or are said to ‘oppose’ capital punishment today, without writing public letters, taking to the streets, or resisting the government. And we would call it ‘opposition’ if an employee took a stand against an employer’s discriminatory practices not by ‘instigating’ action, but by standing pat, say, by refusing to follow a supervisor’s order to fire a junior worker for discriminatory reasons.”); accord Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472, 479 (2011) (concluding that opposition under the NYCHRL does not require an explicit statement that the plaintiff is a victim of discrimination).  

 

   

For appellate junkies only

This is a case for appellate junkies. The Court of Appeals decides whether it even has jurisdiction -- or authority -- to resolve the appeal. Actually, this is not just for appellate junkies. If you handle cases in the district court only, you have to know what to do to preserve your client's appellate rights. 

The case is Peralto v. New York City Dept. of Education, a summary order issued on September 16. This case involves the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), which grants certain rights to disabled students, including an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction in the district court. On June 26, 2025, the SDNY said it did not resolve that motion and a decision will issue in due course. But plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 10, 2025, even before the court issued a ruling on the injunction. On July 15, the court formally denied the injunction. Two weeks later, plaintiff filed a motion in the Second Circuit to expedite appellate review, noting that plaintiff was challenging the district court's injunction ruling and explaining why that ruling was incorrect. Plaintiff never filed a formal notice of appeal.

Normally, we take up an appeal by filing a notice of appeal. That confers appellate jurisdiction upon the Court of Appeals. Without a formal notice of appeal, does the Second Circuit have the power to decide the appeal? Yes, says the Second Circuit (Calabresi, Carney and Perez). This is because courts will liberally construe the requirements under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c), which governs the filing of notices of appeal. The Court notes that "a document not styled as a notice of appeal may therefore serve as one if it is timely and gives the notice required by Rule 3."

The motion to expedite the appeal qualifies as a notice of appeal under FRAP 3 because it was timely and it identifies the denial of the preliminary injunction as the ruling plaintiff sought to challenge. It does not matter that the motion to expedite was filed in the Second Circuit and not the district court. While we are supposed to file the notice of appeal in the district court, filing that document in the Court of Appeals is not fatal under FRAP 4(d).

On the merits, plaintiff loses. The Court of Appeals finds the district court did not improperly deny the injunction request over the student's private school placement.  

Second Circuit clarifies prior ruling on reasonable accommodations in religious discrimination cases

The Court of Appeals has clarified a prior ruling interpreting Title VII's requirement that the plaintiff prove she was denied a reasonable accommodation because of her religion. The clarification does not alter the ultimate ruling in this case, but it offers a more plaintiff-friendly rule for other cases.

The case is Bergin v. New York State Unified Court System, issued on September 15. My summary of the original ruling, issued on July 15, is here. In that post, I wrote:

The Second Circuit holds that its prima facie test for failure-to-accommodate claims is no longer good law following the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. The Circuit thus vacated summary judgment entered in favor of a court officer who was fired after refusing to comply with the Unified Court System's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

. . . 

“An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive,” just as “an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.”

The Supreme Court thus rejected one requirement of our old rule (that a plaintiff inform an employer of the need for an accommodation) and clarified that what a plaintiff must plead and, ultimately, prove (that the employer was motivated in part by the desire to avoid offering a religious accommodation). The Supreme Court explained that a “request for accommodation, or the employer’s certainty that the practice exists, may make it easier to infer motive,” but it “is not a necessary condition of liability.”

In other words, the plaintiff has to show that management was motivated to deny the accommodation due to her religion. In the clarification issued on September 15, the Court adds a footnote stating that "Plaintiff must show the accommodation was denied because of religion, but she does not have to prove traditional discriminatory animus or hostility toward religion." Here is the footnote in full:

In stating that Abercrombie abrogated the absence of a “motive” requirement in our prior test, we do not suggest that a new, heightened discriminatory motive requirement exists in failure-to-accommodate cases. That is to say, an employee asserting a failure-to-accommodate claim need not show that an employer’s denial of an accommodation was motivated by discriminatory animus against religion. But, consistent with Abercrombie, the employee does have to show that the denial was “because” of the employee’s religion as opposed to, say, the employee’s failure to timely provide sufficient information.

Another change to the original opinion is a footnote that references the Supreme Court's ruling in Muldrow, which made it easier for plaintiffs to prove an adverse action in discrimination cases. Muldrow dispenses with the requirement that plaintiffs show the personnel action was a "material" change in his employment. Instead, the plaintiff must show "some harm." In the new footnote, the Court of Appeals declines to find whether or not the denial of a reasonable accommodation would constitute an adverse action under Muldrow.