Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Drivers Management and Werner Enterprises on behalf of Victor Robinson, a deaf individual, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The jury found in favor of the EEOC, awarding Robinson compensatory and punitive damages. The district court awarded Robinson backpay, reduced the damages to comply with the statutory cap, ordered injunctive relief, and granted prejudgment interest. Werner appealed, challenging multiple aspects of the proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted a directed verdict on causation, dismissed Werner’s affirmative defenses of direct threat and undue hardship, and made several evidentiary rulings against Werner. The jury found that Werner failed to hire and accommodate Robinson in violation of the ADA. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to the statutory maximum and awarded backpay and prejudgment interest. Werner’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that there was direct evidence of discrimination, justifying the directed verdict on causation. The court found that Werner failed to provide sufficient evidence for its undue hardship and direct threat defenses. The evidentiary rulings were deemed appropriate, as the comments and policies of other companies were relevant to the case. The court also upheld the jury’s finding that Robinson was qualified for the position and that Werner acted with malice or reckless indifference, justifying the punitive damages award. The court affirmed the district court’s equitable awards of injunctive relief and prejudgment interest, finding no abuse of discretion. View "EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Jacqueline Pilot applied for a promotion with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Kansas City, Missouri. After another candidate was selected, Pilot sued the Secretary of Transportation under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging race, sex, and age discrimination, as well as retaliation for a previous employment discrimination complaint. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. The court found that Pilot did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of discrimination and retaliation. Pilot then appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court applied the burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, which is used for claims lacking direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation. The court found that while Pilot made a prima facie case for her claims, the Secretary provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision: the FAA hired the highest-ranked candidate based on a standardized hiring process. The court concluded that Pilot failed to show that the Secretary's reason was pretextual. The court noted that the hiring process used a mix of objective and subjective criteria, and the top-ranked candidate was selected based on a standardized rubric. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary, finding no evidence of pretext or discrimination. View "Pilot v. Duffy" on Justia Law

Melissa Wanna discovered her profile on MyLife, an information broker, which contained a poor reputation score and references to court records. MyLife offered to provide details or remove the profile for a fee. Believing she lost employment opportunities due to this profile, Wanna filed a class action lawsuit against several Lexis entities, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), along with several Minnesota state law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Wanna’s claims, concluding that MyLife was not Lexis’s agent. The court found that the data-licensing agreement between Lexis and MyLife explicitly stated that their relationship was that of independent contractors, not principal and agent. As a result, Wanna’s federal claims, which depended on an agency relationship, failed. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wanna’s state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and affirmed the dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Wanna’s federal claims required an agency relationship between Lexis and MyLife, which was not established. The court found that MyLife did not have actual or apparent authority to act on Lexis’s behalf, nor did Lexis ratify MyLife’s actions. Additionally, the appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Wanna v. RELX Group, PLC" on Justia Law

Milton Porter pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 200 months in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on three prior violent felony convictions: a 2008 domestic assault in the second degree, a 2018 domestic assault in the second degree, and a 2018 domestic assault in the third degree, all under Missouri law. Porter appealed, arguing he did not have the requisite three prior violent felony convictions to qualify as an armed career criminal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri determined that each of Porter's domestic assault convictions qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA. The court did not address whether Porter’s 2018 Missouri conviction for burglary in the second degree qualified as a violent felony, as the domestic assault convictions were sufficient for the ACCA enhancement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court applied the modified categorical approach to determine that Porter's 2008 and 2018 second-degree domestic assault convictions were violent felonies under the ACCA, as they involved knowingly causing physical injury. The court also determined that Porter's 2018 third-degree domestic assault conviction was a violent felony, as it involved attempting to cause physical injury. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Porter’s three domestic assault convictions were violent felonies under the ACCA, justifying the sentence enhancement. View "United States v. Porter" on Justia Law

Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc., a Ford dealership in North Branch, Minnesota, operates under a Ford Sales and Service Agreement. In late 2022, Ford announced plans to establish a new dealership in Forest Lake, Minnesota, and to reassign half of Anderson & Koch’s designated sales area to the new dealership. Anderson & Koch filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging violations of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Sale and Distribution Act (MVSDA), specifically sections 80E.13(k) and (p). Ford removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the claims.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota partially granted Ford’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Anderson & Koch failed to state a claim under sections 80E.13(k) and (p) regarding the establishment of the new dealership. However, the court allowed Anderson & Koch to challenge the proposed change to its designated sales area under the same sections. Anderson & Koch then appealed the dismissal of its claims related to the new dealership.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Anderson & Koch could not challenge the establishment of the new dealership under sections 80E.13(k) or (p) of the MVSDA. The court held that the establishment of a new dealership did not modify the existing franchise agreement, as required by section 80E.13(k), nor did it arbitrarily change the dealer’s area of sales effectiveness under section 80E.13(p). The court also noted that Anderson & Koch had dismissed its claims regarding the change to its sales area, leaving only the challenge to the new dealership on appeal. View "Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

In several Minnesota cities, only members of a pre-approved union can work on municipal construction jobs. Multiple contractors, a carpenter, and a union objected to this requirement, alleging it violated the First Amendment. The contractors, Kaski, Inc.; Nordic Group, Inc.; and Roen Salvage Co., claimed they missed out on lucrative work due to these project-labor agreements. Luke Krhin, a carpenter, and the Christian Labor Association, which has a local chapter in Minnesota, also joined the lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota determined that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The court found that the contractors, Krhin, and the Christian Labor Association could not succeed on their First Amendment claim. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court focused on the issue of standing, a jurisdictional requirement. The court found that the contractors did not have standing because the relevant constitutional claims belonged to their employees, not to them. The court also found that Krhin, who opposed joining a pre-approved union, was exempt from the requirement as a supervisor, thus lacking standing. The Christian Labor Association also lacked standing because it failed to identify any members who would have standing to sue in their own right.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss based on a lack of standing. View "Christian Labor Association v. City of Duluth" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers suspected Bandak Wiyual Deng of involvement in a shooting at a park on February 10, 2022. Surveillance video showed an individual matching his characteristics exiting a car with what appeared to be a gun. The car, a black Ford Taurus, lacked a license plate or paper registration tag. A confidential informant recorded a conversation with Deng, where Deng mentioned needing a gun for a funeral and a previous shooting. On the day of the funeral, officers stopped Deng, found marijuana and a gun in his car, and Deng admitted to using drugs and touching the gun.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa upheld the government's peremptory strikes of two prospective jurors and refused to admit parts of Deng's interview with law enforcement. Deng's motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, was denied. The jury convicted Deng.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not clearly err in overruling Deng’s objections to the peremptory strikes, as the government provided race-neutral explanations. The court also found that any potential error in the district court's evidentiary rulings was harmless, given the ample evidence supporting Deng’s conviction. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Deng’s motion for a judgment of acquittal, rejecting his facial challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Deng" on Justia Law

Edgar Pratt was on supervised release after serving a prison term for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. He violated the terms of his release multiple times, including accessing a firearm, communicating with a prohibited party, sending threatening messages, and absconding from a residential reentry center. After absconding, he ceased communication with his probation officer and failed to complete the reentry program. He was arrested eight months later.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held a hearing, revoked Pratt's supervised release, and sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. Pratt appealed, challenging the procedural soundness and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court adequately explained its decision, noting Pratt's extensive criminal history and resistance to supervision. The district court's reference to Pratt's "bobbles" while on supervision was not plain error, as the court was familiar with his history. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, including Pratt's criminal history and characteristics. The court held that the district court did not place undue weight on improper factors and acted within its discretion in imposing the statutory maximum sentence.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding Pratt's 24-month imprisonment sentence. View "United States v. Pratt" on Justia Law

Louis Rabbitt was convicted by a jury of failing to register as a sex offender, assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, and committing a crime of violence while failing to register as a sex offender. His probation officer testified that Rabbitt missed a scheduled meeting and was not found at his registered address. Deputy U.S. Marshals later found Rabbitt in a parked car, holding a metal baseball bat, and after a chase, he was captured and subdued.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Rabbitt's motion for a judgment of acquittal, which argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Rabbitt had moved out of his registered residence and failed to update his registration as required. Additionally, the court found that Rabbitt's actions with the baseball bat constituted a threat or display of physical aggression towards the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that sufficient evidence supported Rabbitt's convictions. The court found that Rabbitt knowingly failed to update his registration, used the bat to inspire fear in the officers, and that his actions were intentional. Consequently, the court upheld Rabbitt's convictions for failing to register as a sex offender, assaulting a federal officer, and committing a crime of violence while failing to register. View "United States v. Rabbitt" on Justia Law

In early 2023, investigators conducted six controlled buys of fentanyl pills from Tyran Locure, with Anthony Jackson, Jr. present for two of these buys, which took place in Jackson’s vehicle. A GPS tracker on Jackson’s vehicle showed it frequently parked at an apartment building in Des Moines, Iowa, where both Jackson and Locure were surveilled. A search warrant executed at the apartment found firearms, thousands of fentanyl pills, marijuana, cocaine, cell phones, and a money counter. Jackson’s wallet and documents were also found in the apartment, and $2,263 in cash, including serialized money from a controlled buy, was found on Jackson.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa charged Jackson with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of firearms. The jury convicted Jackson on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 270 months of imprisonment, revoked his supervised release, and added 30 months for violating supervised release terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Jackson’s appeal, which challenged the admission of a forensic report, evidence of prior bad acts, and the sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy conviction. The court held that Jackson waived his confrontation rights by stipulating to the forensic report’s findings. The court also found that the admission of evidence of Jackson’s prior conviction and firearm photographs was proper and not unduly prejudicial. Finally, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Jackson’s conspiracy conviction, given the controlled buys, GPS data, and items found during the search. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Jackson" on Justia Law